Preamble

The House being met, the Clerk, at the Table, informed the House of the unavoidable absence, through indisposition, of Mr. SPEAKER from this day's sitting; Whereupon Major Milner, The Chairman of Ways and Means, proceeded to the Table and, after Prayers, took the Chair as DEPUTY-SPEAKER, pursuant to the Standing Order.

PRIVATE BUSINESS

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER(WESTON-SUPER-MARE) BILL [Lords]

Read a Second time, and committed.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (DONCASTER) BILL [Lords]

Read a Second time, and committed.

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMAN WAR CRIMES TRIALS (BRITISH COUNSEL)

Mr. Skinnard: asked the Attorney-General whether he will publish the names of counsel instructed on behalf of His Majesty's Government, to prosecute the German war criminals at the Nuremberg trials; by whom their fees are paid; and the estimated amount of such fees.

The Solicitor-General (Major Sir Frank Soskice): My hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General will be present at the trial from time to time as Chief Prosecutor. His Deputy, the right hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Sir Maxwell Fyfe), Mr. G. D. Roberts, Lieut.-Colonel Mervyn Griffith-Jones, Colonel H. J. Phillimore and the hon. and gallant Member for Plaistow (Major Elwyn Jones) have been instructed and will be present throughout the trial. The fees in the first instance will have to be paid by His Majesty's Government. The hon. Member will, however, be aware of the provisions of Article 30 of the Charter of the International Military Tribunal, which reads as follows:

The expenses of the Tribunal and of the trials shall be charged by the Signatories against the funds allotted for the maintenance of the Control Council for Germany.
It will, however, have to be a matter for discussion with the other signatory Governments how the provisions of that Article are to be applied in relation to counsel's fees. The brief fees are expected to amount to about 3,250 guineas, but it is impossible to estimate the total cost until it is known how long the trial will last. As I have stated, the Attorney-General will only be present from time to time, and the amount of his brief fee is still under consideration.

Major Guy Lloyd: Could the Solicitor-General say whether it is proposed to make available in the Library of the House a verbatim report of these proceedings, or must we depend entirely on the Press?

The Solicitor-General: So far as I know, no arrangement so far has been made to make available a copy as suggested, but I will bear in mind what the hon. and gallant Gentleman says and will see if arrangements can be made accordingly.

Mr. Anthony Nutting: Can the Solicitor-General say when the trials will begin?

The Solicitor-General: The date as at present fixed is 20th November.

Captain Prescott: Is the House to understand from the hon. and learned Gentleman's answer that the recent Press statement that the learned Attorney-General will receive 5,000 guineas on his brief and 100 guineas a day is true?

The Solicitor-General: So far as I know, there is no foundation for that report.

Oral Answers to Questions — DIVORCE PROCEEDINGS (SERVICE PERSONNEL)

Mr. Sparks: asked the Attorney-General, in view of the congestion and long delay in proceedings for divorce promoted by Service and ex-Servicemen through the Law Society Poor Persons' Committee, if he will take steps to expedite proceedings to enable men with war service to re-establish homes for themselves at the earliest possible moment.

The Solicitor-General: My Noble Friend the Lord Chancellor has this matter under constant consideration. The serious delays


which exist at present are due solely to shortage of manpower and scarcity of accommodation. Every effort is being made to remedy the position which my Noble Friend regards as one of great urgency.

Mr. Sparks: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that a number of Service and ex-Servicemen have been left with the care of children, and that the long delay in the proceedings for divorce is causing them great anguish and anxiety? Will my hon. and learned Friend in cases of that description take some steps to expedite the proceedings?

The Solicitor-General: I cannot add to my answer that my Noble Friend the Lord Chancellor does regard the whole question as one that is extremely pressing, and it will be dealt with as soon and as effectively as possible.

Oral Answers to Questions — JUSTICES OF THE PEACE (MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT)

Mr. Keeling: asked the Attorney-General whether he has now considered the evidence sent to him that some Members of Parliament sit as magistrates in their own constituencies; and whether it is proposed to discourage them from so doing.

The Solicitor-General: There is no legal disqualification for a Member of Parliament who is already a magistrate to act as a Justice of the Peace in his own area, and my Noble Friend leaves it to individual discretion to decide whether an M.P. should exercise judicial functions during the period of his Parliamentary representation. At the same time the Lord Chancellor is disposed to think that an M.P. who devotes himself to serving his constituents in Parliament may feel that this cannot be well combined with the exercise of judicial functions by him in his constituency, and he would not regard a Member as neglecting his magisterial duties if he felt that it was, on the whole, better for him, while he is a Member, not to sit on the Bench.

Mr. Keeling: As the hon. Members in question are Labour Members, I am sure the House will appreciate the impartial attitude of the Lord Chancellor in this matter.

Sir Ronald Ross: Does not this advice run contrary to what we have already been told by the Lord Chancellor, that politics should not be brought on to the bench?

The Solicitor-General: No, it does not. The Lord Chancellor leaves it to the discretion of the individual, as I have stated, and the circumstance to which the hon. Gentleman called attention is obviously one which an individual would take into account in exercising his discretion.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: May we have it perfectly clear that what has been said by the Lord Chancellor is merely an expression of his own opinion, and that there is no ruling of any kind that it is in any way improper for a Member of this House to continue to act as a magistrate in his own constituency if he thinks it proper to do so? Also, has it not been the invariable practice in this House for that to be done in other days under other Governments, and is there any need to change it now?

Mr. Medland: Is it suggested that a magistrate is committing a crime by having become a Member of Parliament?

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AIR FORCE

Overseas Personnel (Living Conditions)

Colonel Erroll: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether he will give urgent consideration to the improvement of living conditions for R.A.F. ground staff at airfields in Europe and overseas.

The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Mr. John Strachey): We are going to improve on the wartime living conditions for Royal Air Force ground staff. I have received better reports of the places which the hon. and gallant Member was good enough to mention to me. For instance, the men are no longer under canvas at Buckeburg.

Colonel Erroll: Is it not a fact that this is causing so much disgruntlement in the R.A.F. that the men are in no mood to improve their own conditions?

Mr. Strachey: The difficulty about improving conditions is that it usually entails building trade labour, and one is not popular if one retains that in the Services at the moment.

Mr. Driberg: Since this Question refers to overseas generally, could my hon. Friend say if there has been any improvement in the deplorable conditions in which the airmen are living at Mauripur—the very important airfield of Karachi?

Mr. Strachey: As my hon. Friend knows, I have that matter under very active consideration at the moment.

Mr. Thurtle: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air (1) whether he is now in a position to make his promised statement regarding living conditions of Air Force personnel at Singapore;
(2) what complaints he has received regarding the conditions under which airmen are obliged to live in Singapore; and what action he has taken to improve these.

Mr. Strachey: When Japan collapsed forces destined for Okinawa and elsewhere had to be diverted to Singapore at very short notice. In addition, 20,000 more prisoners of war than were expected were recovered there and had to be accommodated and fed. Consequently, living conditions were unavoidably difficult at first. Some overcrowding and discomfort is moreover bound to continue at Singapore until the repatriation of prisoners has been completed and our Forces have had time to get properly settled in, and until we can bring some of them home.

Mr. Thurtle: Will my hon. Friend take the most energetic steps to see that these conditions are improved?

Mr. Strachey: I entirely agree with the hon. Member, and very energetic steps are being taken, I can assure him.

Benson Aerodrome

Squadron-Leader Sir Gifford Fox: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether it has yet been decided to retain R.A.F., Benson, as a permanent aerodrome; and whether a final decision will be taken as to whether the size of the runways are to be increased to enable the local authority to proceed with road plans for the permanent diversion of the main Henley to Oxford road.

Mr. Strachey: We shall probably have to retain Benson as a permanent Royal Air Force Station; the future development of the runways is under examina-

tion. We are doing our best to speed up the final decision.

Sir G. Fox: Is the hon. Gentleman able to give any idea of what is likely to be the time before a decision can be taken, because this diversion between Oxford and Henley means that it takes a motorist five minutes longer?

Mr. Strachey: That does not seem to be a very terrible consideration. We cannot give final decisions until the postwar position of the Air Force has been finally determined, but I think it highly probable that Benson will be retained.

Missing Personnel (Search)

Mr. George Wallace: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air how many of the 30,000 airmen, members of air-crews, missing presumed killed, have been accounted for to date.

Mr. Strachey: Of the 38,000 air-crew personnel missing, or presumed killed, we have so far accounted for 3,125. In all these latter cases death has been established. The Missing Research and Enquiry Service is at work in France, Belgium, Holland, Norway, Denmark and in the British zone in Germany. Forty search officers are now working and 80 more are being appointed. In the Far East the work is only now getting going.

Mr. Wallace: Can the Minister say whether anything has been done in the Russian zone?

Mr. Strachey: As the House has been informed, we are in touch with the Russian authorities on that and are attempting to arrange it.

Mr. Lipson: How many of these 30,000 men are in the Far East zone?

Mr. Strachey: I am afraid I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman that.

Filter Officers

Sir Patrick Hannon: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air (1) if his attention has been called to the discontent prevalent among officers in the filter section of the R.A.F., whose release has been deferred, who only discharge nominal or casual duties with two or sometimes four half-holidays weekly; and if the release of these officers can foe expedited so that they may return to civil employment;
(2) to what extent there is now a surplus of filter officers in the R.A.F.; and how many officers returning from overseas, for whom no vacancy can be found, have been posted supernumerary to establishment with loss of rank.

Mr. Strachey: There has naturally been a large reduction in the establishment of these officers since VE-Day, but those that remain still have an essential part to play in our air defence system, and our fighter squadrons could not function properly without them. On 31st December they will actually be some 20 per cent. below requirements. They are only two groups behind the average. Twenty-seven filter officers have returned to the United Kingdom from overseas since 18th May and of these, seven have lost their acting rank on posting to other duties.

Sir P. Hannon: Is it a fact that a large number of these men are standing idle? In view of the fact that they can take a prominent part in reconstruction work and in the conversion from war to peace conditions, can the Minister not accelerate their release as much as possible?

Mr. Strachey: No, Sir, I cannot agree that they are standing idle. Fighter squadrons that are kept up for the fighter defence of this country must have their complement of filter officers.

Air Mails, Far East

Major Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether he is satisfied that air mails for R.A.F. personnel serving in the Far East are arriving with regularity and celerity.

Mr. Strachey: Bad weather, especially the monsoon, has caused some delays, but letters are usually taking between five and nine days. This is about the best we can do for the present.

Major Boyd-Carpenter: Is the Under-Secretary of State aware that newspapers are taking an average of five weeks to India?

Mr. Strachey: No, Sir, but perhaps the hon. and gallant Member would put down a question on the matter.

Major Boyd-Carpenter: I can give the hon. Gentleman the facts.

Mr. Walter Fletcher: Will the Under-Secretary of State bear in mind, in view of the great strain there is upon Transport Command in carrying both mails and passengers, that the proper margin of safety must not be overstepped?

Mr. Strachey: Of course. We cannot therefore yield to pressure which is trying to increase the rate of delivery.

Regular Commissions

Major Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether, in the selection of candidates for regular commissions in the R.A.F., full consideration is being given to the claims of regular O.R. personnel.

Mr. Strachey: Yes, Sir. Many regular airmen have received temporary commissions during the war and we are making our permanent appointments from among all temporary officers.

Requisitioned Properties

Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether he will give notice, wherever practicable, to the local authorities in Ross-shire and Inverness-shire of the Ministry's intention to vacate sites and buildings as the occasions arise, and if, priority will be given to ex-Servicemen who want to acquire suitable buildings for temporary dwellings, etc.

Mr. Strachey: We give notice of our intention to vacate sites and huts in Scotland to the Department of Health for Scotland, which keeps the local authorities informed. Where buildings suitable for temporary dwelling are disposed of, ex-Servicemen will have the same opportunities as other potential buyers.

Mr. Snadden: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air why the grazings of requisitioned land on Bogs of Mayne airfield, Elgin, were not first offered to the farmers from whom the land was requisitioned before being let to the present tenant.

Mr. Strachey: We have not yet decided on the future use of this airfield, and in the meantime it is let temporarily for grazing. Competitive tenders were invited from those in the district likely to be interested, including, of course, the farmers from whom parts of the area had been requisitioned.

Mr. Snadden: Is the hon. Member aware that what he has just said is quite contrary to the facts as they were given to me? When looking into this question will he give an opportunity to the farmers from whom this land was taken to offer for the rights of this grazing? My information is that they were never asked.

Mr. Strachey: I have been given definite information that they were given the same offer to tender as anyone else and that one of them actually did so; but if the hon. Member will give me the information in his possession I will be very glad to look into it.

Dr. Little: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether the aerodromes no longer required in Northern Ireland will be disposed of at an early date in lots for the production of food.

Mr. Strachey: We are now arranging through the Government of Northern Ireland for six airfields to be used for farming immediately. Two more will be available by the end of the year and one more a little later.

Dr. Little: Will the Under-Secretary of State assure us that he will take steps to have these aerodromes dealt with at once so that the farmers concerned can make arrangements for food to be produced in 1946?

Mr. Strachey: The first six are on offer at the moment.

Lieutenant-Colonel Hare: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether he will take immediate steps to release aerodromes that are already earmarked for eventual agricultural use and are now vacant; and whether in doing so he will give priority to aerodromes constructed on heavy land in order that W.A.E.C.s can start winter ploughing as soon as possible and ensure that the nation will receive a food crop from them next year.

Mr. Strachey: Till the size, character and disposition of the post war Air Force is determined there cannot yet be a final choice of airfields to be permanently released. But, in consultation with the Ministry of Agriculture, who have advised on priorities, and by local arrangement we are going to use all possible airfields for farming, even if only temporarily or partially.

Lieut.-Colonel Hare: Can the hon. Gentleman give some assurance that there will be a very early decision, especially in connection with aerodromes which are on heavy land, because unless an early decision is given it will be impossible to obtain any crops before next winter?

Mr. Strachey: I think an early decision can be given about their temporary use for agricultural purposes, but a final decision cannot be given yet.

Lieut.-Colonel Hare: Can the hon. Gentleman give an assurance to the House now that the temporary decisions will be given as quickly as possible?

Mr. Strachey: Yes, Sir, they are being given one after another.

Mr. Turton: Will the aerodromes be offered first to the previous tenants?

Mr. Strachey: No, Sir; I think the practice is to offer them for public tender for agricultural purposes.

Mr. Eden: Is that really correct? Surelythat is not done when the land has been requisitioned?

Mr. Strachey: I should require notice of that question.

Unit, Central India (Inquiry)

Brigadier Fitzroy Maclean: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air if he has inquired into the recent refusal of men of a unit of the R.A.F. in Central India to obey orders and into the action taken to deal with the situation by the commanding officer; and if he has any statement to make.

Mr. Strachey: A full report on the incident referred to and the action taken by the authorities has been called for, and I will communicate with the hon. and gallant Member.

Brigadier Maclean: In view of the most alarming accounts of this epidemic which have appeared in the Press, will the Under-Secretary of State undertake to inform the House as soon as possible of the results of the inquiry?

Mr. Strachey: Yes, Sir. The report as it stands is alarming, but I could not possibly pass judgment on the matter until I have had an opportunity of hearing from the Command concerned. If the


hon. and gallant Member cares to put down another Question I will certainly answer it in the House.

School of Cookery, Halton

Mr. Boardman: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air if the Halton School of Cooking is functioning to maximum capacity.

Mr. Strachey: I find that they have been just over 10 per cent. short of their full capacity during recent weeks at the Halton School of Cookery. Steps have now been taken to bring the figures up to the maximum again.

Mr. Boardman: In view of the statement given by the Under-Secretary of State will he say why cooks in the Royal Air Force are five groups in arrears?

Mr. Strachey: I think that the hon. Member will know from previous answers of mine why cooks are in arrears but I quite agree with him that the Halton School of Cookery should have been kept at full capacity, and it will be so in future.

Accountant Personnel

Captain George Jeger: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether he will publish figures showing the total number of R.A.F. and W.A.A.F. accountant officers and clerks, accounts, at present employed and the numbers estimated as required up to the end of June, 1946.

Mr. Strachey: According to the latest available figures there are 2,133 Royal Air Force and Women Auxiliary Air Force accountant officers and 12,880 airmen and airwomen in the accountant trades. It is at present estimated that some 1,600 officers and 10,500 other ranks will be required at the end of June next.

Mr. Lipson: Is the hon. Member aware that these figures are as high as those of the Army? Are the methods of accounting in the Air Force not out of date?

Mr. Strachey: Whether they are out of date or not is another question, but I am quite sure that they cannot be altered in time to affect demobilisation.

Local Authority Members (Postings)

Mr. Garry Allighan: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether

he will ensure that members of the R.A.F. who have been elected to serve on local authorities are posted to home establishments in order that they may carry out their public duties.

Mr. Strachey: No, Sir. I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to the hon. Member for South Edinburgh (Sir W. Darling) on 24th August.

Demobilisation

Mr. Driberg: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air if he is satisfied that an intake of 33 per cent. of the total intake in November and 27 per cent. in December will enable him to attain evenness in group releases as between trades by the end of the year.

Mr. Strachey: The intake of untrained men into the Royal Air Force in November and December cannot affect the rate of release by the end of the year. There is now little doubt that the R.A.F. will be allotted an intake for the first six months of the New Year large enough to permit the release of the extra four groups which I conditionally announced on 22nd October.

Mr. Driberg: Can my hon. Friend say how nearly he will have approached evenness, as between trades, by the end of the year?

Mr. Strachey: The figures have all been published in the Promulgations, and my hon. Friend can see the exact position.

Mr. Lipson: Does that mean that the trades within the groups will have been released by the end of next year?

Mr. Strachey: I am afraid I have not understood the hon. Gentleman's question.

Mr. Lipson: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that many trades are kept back in the groups? Does his answer mean that by the end of next year that will be put right?

Mr. Strachey: By the end of this year? No, Sir. We cannot achieve perfect evenness in numbers by the end of this year.

Mr. Lipson: I am asking about the middle of next year.

Mr. Strachey: That depends upon the speed of general release between now and next June.

Mr. Driberg: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air why the release of Signals Radar officers in Group 19, many of whom are now redundant, has been deferred from the end of December, 1945, to the end of January, 1946.

Mr. Strachey: Signals Radar officers in Group 19 will be released in December as originally announced. The fact that the latest release promulgation reads "December/January" for Group 19 means that, unfortunately, no further groups of officers in this branch can be released in January. Far from being redundant, these signals officers are badly needed for the safety of the air trooping programme.

Mr. Collins: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether he is aware that although many Technical Signals, Radar, officers in S.E.A.A.F. have done no work in their trade for the past six months, their demobilisation is deferred, although officers in other branches are being released up to Group 25; and will he arrange for the release of such officers with their groups.

Mr. Strachey: There may well have been temporary dislocation during the last six months in this Command. I am making inquiries of the Command and will communicate with my hon. Friend.

Flight-Lieutenant Parkin: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air in view of the retention of cooks in the R.A.F. beyond the date for release of their age and service group, what steps are being taken to train the maximum number of fresh cooks; and how far the number of cooks on establishments are being reduced by misemployment of redundant trades and regular cookhouse fatigues.

Captain Prescott: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air why, and to what extent, there is still delay in demobilising cooks in the R.A.F.

Mr. Strachey: We have reduced the delay in the release of cooks for December by one group. They are now being trained at the rate of 250 a week. The reasons for the delay are those which I gave in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Newton (Sir R. Young) on 22nd August. As for reducing the number

of trained cooks, the House will appreciate that there is a limit to that in the vital interests of the rest of the Service.

Mr. Gallacher: Is the Minister aware that there are several very capable cooks attending to the redundant monarchs at Claridges, and could they not be utilised?

Mr. Strachey: They are not in the R.A.F.

Major Symonds: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether, to ensure uniform treatment of all Class C release applications he will issue instructions that all such applications will be for warded to his Department for final disposal and not rejected without explanation by intermediate commanders.

Mr. Strachey: No, Sir. If all applications came to my Department, I am afraid that there would be vast delays in dealing with genuine and urgent cases.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air what steps are being taken to disband redundant aerodrome construction units, with a view to the release of building trade operatives under the Class B scheme.

Mr. Strachey: We are disbanding units of the Airfield Construction Service in all parts of the world as requirements decline and local civilian labour can be engaged overseas. This will enable offers of release in Class B to be made to suitable men serving in airfield construction units.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Is the Minister able to go a little further than that very satisfactory reply, and say whether any special steps have been taken for these men to be brought home?

Mr. Strachey: As offers of release in Class B are made to them and accepted, they will be brought home.

Mr. Nutting: Can the hon. Gentleman say when this new dispensation was decided upon, because up to about a month ago I understand that builders in the R.A.F. were building airfields in India?

Mr. Strachey: Some of the members of the R.A.F. construction units may be building trade workers and they may still be building and improving accommodation in India and elsewhere. As I said


earlier, we are extremely keen and under heavy pressure to improve accommodation, but we shall let these men—the ones that are suitable—out under Class B in future.

Compassionate Leave

Lieut.-Colonel Byers: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether he will expedite the compassionate release of 1314151 L.A.C. Bolwell, E. K., E. 2 Section, 166 Signal Wing, S.E.A.A.F., whose application was made to his commanding officer on 6th August, since when he has heard nothing.

Mr. Strachey: This airman has been granted 28 days' compassionate leave and arrived in this country on 2nd November. I am inquiring into the delay which is stated to have taken place, and will communicate with the hon. and gallant Member.

Lieut. -Colonel Byers: While thanking the Under-Secretary for that reply, may I ask him whether he is aware that this indicates a lack of urgency in the consideration of certain of these compassionate cases at the present time, and whether he cannot take special steps to see that where there is any suspicion of compassionate grounds the application is hastened as much as possible?

Mr. Strachey: In the Overseas Commands cases go before tribunals of men and officers, who judge each application without knowing the name of the man concerned. I believe that is the fairest possible way, and I should hate to upset that machinery in any way.

Lieut.-Colonel Byers: But will he not hasten the consideration of these cases by the tribunals?

Mr. Strachey: I will certainly look into that.

Mr. Stephen: Is the Minister aware that there is great disappointment because of the lack of compassion shown by the authorities dealing with compassionate releases?

Mr. Strachey: I could not agree to that. I would remind the House that there must be a limit to the number of compassionate releases granted, or there will be severe complaints from the airmen as a whole coming out under Class A.

Technicians (Remustering)

Mr. Attewell: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether he is aware that men of the R.A.F., after several years' service as technicians, are upon remuster, placed as cooks with loss of rank and pay; and whether he will take steps to ensure previous rank and pay is granted in such cases.

Mr. Strachey: In order to try to even out the rate of release as between trades, we had earlier this year to remuster some tradesmen as cooks. These men retain the substantive or temporary rank they held formerly, and they retain the appropriate pay of that rank for 12 months. If by then they have not been released nor have qualified for a higher rate of pay in their new trade, they will be paid at the Group V rate appropriate to their rank. Suchcompulsory remustering has now been stopped.

War Gratuity

Mr. Medland: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether gratuities to Regular members of the R.A.F. will be paid on completion of service with wax-service-only ranks, or at the end of their period of Regular service.

Mr. Strachey: The question of when their war gratuities will be paid to Regulars has still to be settled for the three Services. But I can say that Regulars whose service continues after the emergency will not have to wait until the end of their Regular service.

Mr, Medland: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind the fact that a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush?

Transport Command (Extension of Service)

Mr. Lipson: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air why R.A.F. personnel of Transport Command at R.A.F. Station, Stoney Cross, Hampshire, were asked to volunteer to extend their service by six months under a threat that their service would be compulsorily extended if volunteers were not forthcoming; and will he meet service requirements by measures which do not violate the age and length of service principles for release.

Mr. Strachey: I am assured that no threat was made to retain the men of this Station. What was said was that it might be necessary to invoke the Military Necessity clause of the White Paper, for the


retention of certain key individuals of Transport Command, since the needs of the release programme as a whole left us no alternative. The number of men retained in this way will be kept to the minimum, and each case will come to the Air Ministry for approval.

Mr. Lipson: Why did not the technical officer, who on 2nd November is alleged to have made this threat, appeal for volunteers without any qualification whatever? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that as a result of the way in which that officer put it, not a single volunteer has been forthcoming?

Mr. Strachey: I do not know whether the particular officer made a good speech or a bad one, but I can assure the hon. Member that no threat whatever was used.

Airmen (Approach to Members of Parliament)

Air-Commodore Harvey: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air why 1064687 L.A.C. Brooks, N.W., was refused permission, on 1st October, 1945, by the officer commanding R.A.F. Station, Wilmslow, to approach the hon. Member for Macclesfield on the subject of his temporary release on compassionate grounds to enable him to care for his sick wife.

Mr. Strachey: The facts of this case are disputed. If the hon. and gallant Member will send me particulars I will, of course, investigate them immediately. It would be most improper if any attempt were made to hinder an airman from communicating with his Member of Parliament on this or any other topic not involving security. On the other hand, I must repeat that a servingairman with a grievance must first try the normal official channels. My office cannot and will not take up a complaint until this has been done.

Air-Commodore Harvey: Is the Minister aware that this airman has made three applications for compassionate release, and that the operation on his wife has been twice postponed because that release has been refused? I will gladly give him the information he requires, which I have in writing.

Mr. Strachey: The point at issue in the question was whether there had been any attempt to prevent the airman com-

municating with the hon. and gallant Member. I trust that that was not the case.

Mr. McGovern: Can the Under-Secretary state how it is that when headquarters in this country are satisfied regarding a compassionate case, they are sometimes overruled by a commanding officer?

Mr. Strachey: If the compassionate release, compassionate leave, or whatever it is, has been granted by the Air Ministry, it cannot be ruled out elsewhere.

Mr. Driberg: Would my hon. Friend substitute the word "should" for the word "must" near the end of his original answer? There is no "must" about it; there is an absolute right.

Mr. Strachey: It would be most improper if any attempt were made to interfere with that right; but he must use the normal channels first.

Mr. Eden: Would the hon. Gentleman be good enough to look at that matter again? This matter has been discussed and a ruling has been given on it before, and I do not think that the word "must" is the correct word.

Mr. Strachey: We take the view that the Air Ministry must be, as it were, a court of appeal; it cannot be a court of first instance in this matter, and we do think it is very much better if the normal Service channels are used first. Of course, there is nothing to prevent the airman communicating with anyone, but we cannot take up his case until he has tried the Service channels.

Air-Commodore Harvey: Can we have an assurance that commanding officers will forward applications to group headquarters for further consideration instead of turning them down on the spot?

Mr. Strachey: That is a question of procedure within the normal channels.

Major Conant: Do we understand that disciplinary action will be taken against a man if he writes to his Member of Parliament before trying Service channels?

Mr. Strachey: Oh no, Sir. If anything I have said suggests that, I withdraw it immediately. All I have said is that we cannot deal with the matter at all until it has been taken first through the normal channels.

Overseas Postings

Major Wyatt: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether he will institute a rule that no men over the age of 40 may be posted further a field than Germany.

Mr. Strachey: Such a rule would make it impossible to meet the requirements of the overseas commands for skilled and experienced personnel without holding back men due for release. The upper age limit for posting airmen, including corporals, to most overseas commands is in fact 42; it is 50 for senior N.C.O's and non-regular officers.

Major Wyatt: When applications are made for compassionate postings at home by men over the age of 40 in the Royal Air Force, is additional consideration given by reason of the fact that the applicants are over the age of 40?

Mr. Strachey: Yes, Sir.

Equipment Assistants (S.E.A.A.F.)

Mr. Garry Allighan: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether he is aware that No. 3 Movement Control Unit of the S.E.A.A.F. has a surplus of four sergeant equipment assistants; and as the release of that trade is being deferred owing to shortage, will he see that these men are properly employed.

Mr. Strachey: I am making inquiries regarding this unit and will communicate with my hon. Friend as soon as possible.

Weapon Training

Mr. Garry Allighan: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air if he is aware that airmen with seven years' ser vice, now attached to the R.A.F., 112 M.U. of the M.E.F. are now having courses in how to use a rifle and Sten gun in which they have been proficient throughout their service; and whether, as these men are equipment assistants whose group release is deferred, he will speed up their rate of release in view of these facts.

Mr. Strachey: This general combat training amounts to only five working days a year, so I am afraid that not much relief could be got from its abolition. In any case, I should say from my own Service experience that a certain amount of refresher weapon training for men in the ground trades of the R.A.F. is justified.

Debach Aerodrome (Civilian Labour)

Lieut.-Colonel Hare: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether he is satisfied that civilian labour employed at Debach aerodrome is justified in view of the labour shortage and the fact these men have difficulty in occupying their time.

Mr. Strachey: We resumed possession of this airfield in September. It has now been allotted to the War Office and Board of Trade who are just beginning to make use of it. I understand that they will require the full services of most of the civilian maintenance staff.

Establishments (Reduction)

Flight-Lieutenant Park in: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air what methods are used by his Department to bring about a rapid reduction of establishments to correspond with the reduced operational work of many units and commands; and what independent checks are employed to ensure that work of low priority is not undertaken solely out of keenness to keep units fully occupied.

Mr. Strachey: All establishments are under continual review by the Air Ministry Establishments Committee which has local branches overseas. These include finance members as well as service officers. They review the establishments in detail and report direct to the Air Ministry and not through Commanders-in-Chief. That does not mean that all the retraining and reposting at present necessary for the release programme may not sometimes result in particular airmen being under employed for short periods.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTERS' JOURNEYS (BRITISH AIRCRAFT)

Air-Commodore Harvey: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air in view of the Prime Minister's flight to the U.S. on 9th November, 1945, in an American aircraft, he will give an assurance that in future Ministers of the British Government will fly in British aircraft when travelling to foreign countries.

Lieutenant William Shepherd: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air when it will be possible to provide the Prime Minister with a British aircraft in which to travel.

Mr. Straehey: When the Royal Air Force is called upon to carry Ministers by air, the Commander-in-Chief, Transport Command, provides the most suitable aircraft available. As the House knows, British production was concentrated during the war on combat types and as a result we have many American aircraft in Transport Command at present. They will be replaced by British aircraft.

Air-Commodore Harvey: Will the hon. Gentleman give an assurance that Ministers will fly in British aircraft where-ever possible? Is he aware that British aviation needs a good fillip to keep its prestige where it should be?

Mr. Strachey: We are well aware of the importance of that consideration, and wherever possible, certainly that will be done.

Lieutenant Shepherd: Does the hon. Gentleman mean that there was not one suitable British type available for the use of the Prime Minister on his recent trip?

Mr. Strachey: In the opinion of the Commander-in-Chief, Transport Command, which I am sure is the expert opinion, that is so.

Sir G. Fox: Is it because they were not airworthy?

Mr. Nutting: Which, the Government or the machines?

Mr. Strachey: No, Sir. We consider that the care and safety of the Prime Minister are a matter of some importance.

Mr. Mikardo: To what extent would this problem and other problems connected with the production of civil aircraft be expedited if there were devoted to them the skill and energy which are now being dissipated in spectacular and useless efforts to beat the world air-speed record?

Mr. Strachey: The efforts were not useless; the record was beaten.

Teleprinter Operators

Mr. Collins: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air why, in view of the fact that teleprinter operators are due for demobilisation up to Group 25 by 31st December, 1945, Clerks S/D in S.E.A.A.F., who are only due for demobilisation up to Group 22 by the same

date, have just been informed that they are surplus to requirements and asked to volunteer for misemployment as teleprinter operators.

Mr. Strachey: I am making inquiries of the command and will communicate with my hon. Friend.

Mr. Collins: Is the Minister aware that this is the second Question I have addressed to him today which he has been unable to answer, and will he take immediate steps to get the information?

Mr. Strachey: The Question was only on the Order Paper for some 24 hours, and it takes us longer than that to communicate with overseas commands.

Mr. Bowles: Will not the Government consider now appointing a Minister to deal specially with demobilisation problems, since at present there are questions to each Service Minister and to the Minister of Labour?

Mr. Straehey: That matter does not come within my sphere.

Repatriation

Flying-Officer Bowden: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air if those airmen who have completed their overseas tour by January 1946, will be repatriated to the United Kingdom in time for Christmas, especially those men whose release groups have been retarded.

Mr. Strachey: I wish we could do this but we simply have not got the air-lift or the shipping. The number of men involved is considerable; because of the reduction of six months in the overseas tour of duty for single men 24,000 extra men have to be brought home this winter.

Dependant's Allowance

Mr. Quintin Hogg: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air why no answer has been made to the request of the Ministry of Pensions to consider the case of Mrs. Ethel Barney, mother of 1414035, L.A.C. Barney, A., R.A.F., of 457, Cowley Road, Oxford, for a dependant's allowance; and whether he will take steps to see that, in future, similar delays do not take place.

Mr. Strachey: I am making inquiries into this case and will communicate with the hon. Member.

Mr. Hogg: Having regard to the fact that, I understand, the request was made on 31st August, will the hon. Gentleman take steps to see that similar delays do not take place in future?

Mr. Strachey: My information is that the request to us by the Ministry of Pensions was made on 5th November.

Oral Answers to Questions — ARMED FORGES

Leave

Mr. Medland: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether the leave granted for Overseas Service to war service personnel at the rate of one day's leave for each month of Service Overseas applies to Regular Servicemen; and, if so, when are they to be given this leave.

Mr. Strachey: Overseas Service leave was introduced as part of the release scheme for non-Regulars but has been extended to Regulars whose service ends while the release scheme is in operation. The Service Departments are now considering the introduction of special "end of the war" leave for Regulars and instructions will shortly be promulgated.

Overseas Tour

Major Wyatt: asked the Prime Minister whether he will give instructions to the service departments that where members of different services are serving in the same theatre there shall be no difference between service and service in the tour of duty that has to be served in that theatre before repatriation.

The Lord President of the Council (Mr. H. Morrison): The length of the overseas tour is dependent upon a number of factors, the most important of which are the total strength to be retained in the command, the extent of its losses under the release scheme, the availability of suitable replacements in the United Kingdom and the supply and frequency of transport. The effect of the relevant leave scheme on the effective strength of the command is also a factor. In the case of the Royal Navy the need for the periodical return home of ships for major refitting affects the position materially and is in fact the dominating factor. In the circumstances it would not be possible to arrange iden-

tical tours for all overseas commands, or for all three Services in any particular command, without lowering the standards now existing in some cases. The present system aims at giving the best terms possible in fluctuating circumstances and I am satisfied that any attempt at rigid standardisation would, on balance, result in disadvantage.

Oral Answers to Questions — OFFICIAL INFORMATION (MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT)

Mr. Hogg: asked the Prime Minister whether he will give an assurance that in no case will information requested from the Government be withheld from Members of the House of Commons except in the interests of military security.

Mr. Herbert Morrison: No. Sir. The Government do not intend to withhold information unnecesarily, but no Government would give the sweeping assurance for which the hon. Member asks.

Mr. Hogg: Can the right hon. Gentleman say on what principle it is proposed to withhold information from the House?

Mr. Morrison: The passion of the hon. Gentleman for uniformity is very shocking. This is a matter that cannot be judged by Standing Orders; it must be judged on the merits of each case. There is a whole range of matters on which it would not be proper to give information to the House, at any rate at a certain stage.

Mr. Hogg: Am I to understand that there are no principles, but that each case is separately decided?

Mr. Morrison: There are certain principles. The hon. Gentleman's experience of responsible administration is limited, but in order to help him, I will give him a few examples that have occurred to my mind and which I have noted down. It would obviously be harmful to have premature disclosure of discussions with other Governments on Foreign Affairs, or the disclosure of information which might be embarrassing to other Governments. It would be wrong to disclose the Government's intentions before policy is formulated on domestic affairs, and it would be wrong to anticipate the Budget.

Lieut.-Colonel Dower: The right hon. Gentleman is wrong every time.

Mr. Morrison: It would be very nice to find an occasion when the hon. and gallant Gentleman was right. Finally, it would be unwise to disclose the composition or proceedings of Cabinet meetings. I present these examples to the hon. Gentleman as further material on which he might try to sharpen his teeth.

Mr. Hogg: Will the right hon. Gentleman, in the exercise of his usual courtesy, tell us if one of the principles at present being operated is that information which might be embarrassing to this Government is being withheld?

Mr. Morrison: This Government would never think of descending to such depths.

Sir G. Fox: What about the quantity of petrol stocks?

Oral Answers to Questions — GREAT BRITAIN AND UNITED STATES (NEGOTIATIONS)

Mr. Boothby: asked the Prime Minister whether he will give an assurance that any financial agreement that may be negotiated in Washington between this country and the United States will be subject to the ratification of Parliament.

Mr. H. Morrison: The form in which any such agreement will be presented to Parliament for discussion will receive careful consideration, but I am not at present in a position to go into further detail.

Mr. Boothby: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the Government are under an absolute pledge to this House not to take any final decision with regard to the Bretton Woods Agreement until we have had an opportunity of discussing it?

Mr. Morrison: Certainly, Sir, but the Question was not specifically directed to Bretton Woods.

Oral Answers to Questions — MOSLEMS (BRITISH EMPIRE)

Sir John Graham Kerr: asked the Prime Minister if he will give an approximate estimate of the number of Moslems in the British Empire and its dependencies.

Mr. H. Morrison: The approximate number of Moslems in India is 92,000,000, in the Dominions 161,750, and in the Colonial Empire 13,325,000, giving a grand total of 105,486,750.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOOD SUPPLIES

Sweets Ration

Mr. Follick: asked the Minister of Food whether he will make arrangements to provide additional sweets for children at Christmas, so that they may celebrate the victory parties which will take place then.

Mr. Bottomley: asked the Minister of Food, if there is any likelihood of an increased sweets ration, particularly for children, before Christmas.

Mr. Sidney Shephard: asked the Minister of Food if he is now in a position to increase the sweets ration.

The Minister of Food (Sir Benjamin Smith): I am not able to consider any permanent increase, but for the four-week ration period commencing on 9th December I have decided to increase the sweets ration from 12 to 16 ozs. for everyone.

Mr. Follick: Could not allocations be made for children's parties at Christmas?

Sir B. Smith: No, Sir.

Mr. Shephard: Will the Minister do his best to increase the children's sweets ration as soon as he possibly can, even although he cannot make a general increase for adults?

Sir B. Smith: I shall take every favourable opportunity to increase rations both for children and adults.

Mr. Stokes: While I am not disputing in any way the decision of the Minister with regard to the children, is he aware of the consternation that is felt by a large number of people in this country at the decision to increase the general ration at Christmas while Europe starves?

Sir B. Smith: I am sorry, Sir, but my first duty is to the British public.

T.T. Milk

Major Conant: asked the Minister of Food what steps he is taking to ensure that T.T. milk is not subjected to heat treatment before sale to the public.

Sir B. Smith: None, Sir.

Major Conant: Will the right hon. Gentleman consult with the Minister of Agriculture as to the need for the disposal of surplus T.T. milk?

Sir B. Smith: May I suggest to the hon. and gallant Member that he himself approaches my right hon. Friend?

Mr. York: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is the policy of the Government to encourage the production of T.T. milk?

Sir B. Smith: It is the policy of this Government to encourage the production of T.T. milk, but not necessarily, at this moment, the heat treatment of it.

Stocks

Colonel Erroll: asked the Minister of Food when he expects to be in a position to reveal the levels of stocks of food held in this country.

Sir B. Smith: Whilst I shall keep the matter under review, I am not certain that it will ever be desirable for a country which will always have to purchase large quantities of imported food to reveal its stocks.

Colonel Erroll: Is this another matter, the revelation of which will cause embarrassment to this Government?

Sir B. Smith: It is another matter that might cause embarrassment to the country as a whole.

Cereals (Allocation)

Dr. Little: asked the Minister of Food whether he will assign a certain amount of the cereals, at present granted to brewers, to farmers and poultry-keepers for the production of more milk and eggs which are in short supply.

Sir B. Smith: No, Sir.

Dr. Little: Does not the Minister recognise that something drastic will have to be done in the near future for the production of more eggs and milk, which are essential to the health of the people?

Sir B. Smith: Perhaps the hon. Member will keep that in mind when pressure is brought upon him to increase the flour extraction to 85 per cent. to the detriment of the feeding of poultry and cattle in this country.

Dr. Little: Does the Minister believe that the producers of milk and eggs are getting a fair share of the feeding stuffs today? I think they are not.

Sir B. Smith: The Minister not only believes it, but he knows it.

Imported Tomatoes

Mr. Watkins: asked the Minister of Food (1) what financial arrangements are being made for the handling and disposal of imported Teneriffe tomatoes this season;
(2) what is holding up the arrival in this country of cargoes of tomatoes from the Canary Islands.

Sir B. Smith: The arrangements for the importation of tomatoes from the Canary Islands are under discussion with the Spanish Government. In the circumstances, therefore, it would be undesirable to make any statement on the subject at the present time.

Mr. Watkins: Is the Minister aware that there are four ships outside the harbours in the Canary Islands which have waited for a fortnight to be loaded with tomatoes; and is he aware that we require tomatoes in this country at the present time?

Sir B. Smith: Yes, Sir. I am also aware of the fact that we require them on terms which will at least be beneficial to this country.

Mr. S. Shephard: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when we are likely to have a few bananas in this country?

Sir B. Smith: I hope to satisfy the long felt want of the hon. Gentleman in the very near future.

Mrs. Jean Mann: Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that when the supplies do arrive, they will not be monopolised by England, and that Scotland gets a fair share?

Sir B. Smith: I must say to the hon. Lady that I draw no distinctions between one country and another.

Mrs. Mann: Oh, yes, with regard to tomatoes.

Sir B. Smith: The subject was bananas.

Ration Cards

Colonel Erroll: asked the Minister of Food whether he will consider issuing new food rationing documents on the presentation of the old ones, thus eliminating the need for civilian identity cards.

Sir B. Smith: No, Sir, not while the National Register is in existence. I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply given by the Minister of Health on 11th October.

Colonel Erroll: If the right hon. Gentleman will read that reply he will see that the chief purpose of the civilian identity card was to help the Minister of Food, and the purpose of this Question is to find out how it does help him and whether we cannot avoid identity cards. Could the Minister not answer the Question more precisely?

Sir B. Smith: Not at the moment, but, if the hon. and gallant Member will put down a specific Question on that aspect of the problem, I will have a look at it.

Food Offices, St. Albans

Mr. Dumpleton: asked the Minister of Food if he is aware that the local food control offices in the city of St. Albans occupy two houses which are large enough to house six families; that alternative accommodation which is not suitable for residential purposes has been indicated to his divisional food officer; and will he take steps to expedite the transfer of the food offices so that the two houses can be released for urgently needed living accommodation.

Sir B. Smith: Yes, Sir.

Restaurant Meals (Drink Prices)

Lieutenant Shepherd: asked the Minister of Food the maximum prices which may be charged for whisky, gin and beer when served with a meal in a restaurant.

Sir B. Smith: As a tabular statement is involved, I will, with permission, circulate the answer in the OFFICIAL Report.

Following is the statement:

The following are the maximum prices which are laid down in the schedule to the Foods (Meals in Establishments) Order (S.R. and O. 1942 No. 909) and which may be charged for whisky, gin and beer when served with a meal in a catering establishment:

Beverage
At the rate of



s.
d.


Whisky
8
9 per gill


Gin
8
9 per gill


Beer, Draught
1
1 per Imperial half pint.


Beer, Bottled
1
7 per Imperial or reputed half pint.

Boxed White Fish

Major Younger: asked the Minister of Food upon what grounds imports of boxed white fish are to be excluded from his Ministry's normal system of compulsory primary allocation at the ports; and how it is proposed to ensure fair distribution as between different ports and different centres of population.

Sir B. Smith: Shipping facilities make it necessary for the bulk of this boxed fish which is to be shipped from Denmark and Norway to be discharged at Harwich and Newcastle; it would be impracticable and wasteful of inland transport to bring it to all the fishing ports for primary allocation. I have, therefore, permitted direct consignment to the more important inland markets. Merchants at certain East Coast ports, preferably through their associations, are, however, free to make arrangements to import boxed fish, and I trust that the supplies will be fairly shared either by allocation or other methods. Individual merchants, coastal or inland, are required to distribute boxed fish to their customers under the normal procedure of the white fish distribution scheme.
I have asked the Danish and Norwegian authorities to see that consignments are fairly distributed to the various ports and markets authorised to receive them, but, even if, owing to greater initiative at a particular place, a somewhat larger share may be obtained, the permitted maximum is all too small in comparison with present landings to cause serious maldistribution.

Oral Answers to Questions — BOARD OF TRADE (ENFORCEMENT DEPARTMENT)

Major Lloyd: asked the President of the Board of Trade what is the number of staff in the Enforcement Department; what is the average number of investigations made per week; and who gives instructions for prosecutions.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. Ellis Smith): We have no powers to direct industry to any part of the country—

Major Lloyd: On a point of Order. I think there must be some mistake, as this is in no way an answer to my Question.

Mr. Ellis Smith: This is an answer to the Question all right, and hon. Members will follow it if they will listen for a change.
We are, however, actively encouraging industry"—

Mr. E. P. Smith: On a point of Order. Would the hon. Gentleman read out to us the Question which he is answering?

Mr. Ellis Smith: "During the past 12 months"—[Interruption.] It is all right. "Fifty-nine building schemes"—[Interruption.] Well, if hon. Members would only listen they would see that this is the answer to the Question that has been asked.

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): I think the hon. Gentleman is answering Question 66 in error.

Major Lloyd: On a point of Order. Is it permissible for me to assist the Minister by reading out my Question to him?

Mr. Stephen: On that point of Order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I would submit that the Minister is answering Question 62 in a very general way—[Interruption.]

Mr. Ellis: I apologise. With apologies, I will accept the responsibility for reading the wrong answer. The reply to No. 62 is: On 1st November, 1945, 383 officers were engaged primarily on enforcement duties; an average of about 860 investigations are made each week; the Solicitor to the Board of Trade is responsible for the institution and conduct of prosecutions subject to the general instructions of my right hon. and learned Friend.

Major Lloyd: Is the Minister aware that there have been a number of instances lately to which the magistrates have called attention where these enforcement officers have adopted most unworthy and un-British methods in order to get information for prosecutions, and will he discourage that method to the best of his ability?

Mr. Ellis Smith: If the hon. and gallant Gentleman will bring to our attention any specific charges of that character, we will see that they are looked into.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSE OF COMMONS (MEMBERS' VISITORS)

Brigadier Fitzroy Maclean: (by Private Notice)asked Mr. Speaker whether in view of the considerable delay, often amounting to two or three hours, in notifying hon. Members of the presence, in the Lobby of visitors wishing to see them, and in view of the resulting inconvenience and annoyance to those concerned, he will re-organise the present system by which hon. Members are notified of the presence of visitors?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): The authorities of the House are fully conscious of the unsatisfactory situation regarding the delivery of greencards and messages, and they regret the inconvenience caused both to hon. Members and visitors. The unprecedented number of visitors has, however, put a severe strain on the staff, which is short-handed owing to the absence of men on Service, but any suggestions from hon. Members for improving the facilities will be welcome. In the meantime, as an experiment, a board showing the names of hon. Members has been placed in the Lobby, on which coloured pins are placed against the names of hon. Members for whom green cards or messages have been received. In order that the experiment may have a chance of success, hon. Members must co-operate by referring to the board from time to time when passing through the Lobby. If this experiment is proved to be a success, it may be further developed.

Mr. Bowles: Is that in substitution of the green card system, or in addition to it?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: It is in addition to it.

Mr. Driberg: In view of what you have just said, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, would there not be a strong case for Class B release of those members of the staff of the House who are still serving in the Forces?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That is not a matter on which I have a final voice.

Mr. Eden: While expressing gratitude, if I may, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, for your suggestion, about the arrangements in the Members' Lobby, will you bear in mind that there is really no solution to this


question, so far as hon. Members are concerned, until the staff is increased, and I feel sure that the Government would wish to assist as much as they can in that direction?

Mr. Scollan: Might I suggest that, while the notice board is a very great improvement on the present system, it might be enlarged so that hon. Members could see without having to crowd round about it?

Mr. H. Morrison: In response to the observations of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, if the authorities of the House are of opinion that they badly need help in the way of additional staff, and if the authorities will make representations to the Government, I will certainly see that they are sympathetically considered.

Mr. Gallacher: Could we not follow the procedure at the railway stations and have someone with a loud speaker?

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY (OUTPUT TARGET)

Mr. Tom Smith: I would like your guidance, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, on a point which I think ought to be corrected. I have been doing my best to get into contact with the Minister of Fuel and Power to give him an opportunity of correcting what was obviously a mistake made yesterday when, replying to a question about coal output, the Minister said in answer to a supplementary question, that the output per man shift had increased during the past six weeks from 1.1 tons to 1.3 tons, whereas in HANSARD this morning the correct figures are given, that the figures had gone up from 1.01 to 1.03 per man shift. The point I have in mind is that unless that correction is made here and given the same publicity in the Press as has been given to the incorrect figures this morning, it will rather harm than encourage the increased output of coal.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and Power (Mr. William Foster): My right hon. Friend was not aware that this matter was to be raised this afternoon by my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr. T. Smith), otherwise he would have been in his place to answer the question. The reply which my right hon. Friend gave yesterday was to a supplementary question in respect to the increase in output and, relying upon his memory, he omitted to put a nought after the decimal point. The result was that he gave a wrong impression and an inaccurate figure. Immediately following Question Time he realised the mistake, and the Official Reporters were informed. Hon. Members will observe that in the Official Report this morning it has been put in order; also, the correction was sent on to the Press. That is the statement I have to make.

Mr. Eden: May I ask the Leader of the House if this is perhaps one of the reasons why the Government are so reluctant to give information?

Colonel Lancaster: I do not think hon. Members or the public will be very concerned about the difference between ·01 and ·1 and ·03 and ·3. What they are worried about is the Minister having said that there was an appreciable increase and by no possible calculation—[An Hon. Member: "Are you making a speech?"]—could ·01 to ·03 be considered an appreciable increase.

Captain Crookshank: As the Minister realised almost at once that he had made a mistake, would it not have been better if he had come down to the House straight away and made the correction here?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That is a matter for the Minister—he made the correction in HANSARD.

Oral Answers to Questions — BILLS PRESENTED

WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION (PNEUMOCONIOSIS) BILL,

"to make provision for disregarding, for the purposes of certain time limits in schemes made under Section forty-seven of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1925, periods of war service or war employment," presented by Mr. James Griffiths; supported by Mr. Greenwood, Mr. Shinwell, the Solicitor-General and Mr. Lindgren; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 37.]

BUILDING MATERIALS AND HOUSING BILL,

''to make financial provision for the purpose of facilitating the production, equipment, repair, alteration and acquisition of houses and other buildings, and to make provision for limiting the price for which certain houses may be sold and the rent at which certain houses may be let," presented by Mr. Aneurin Bevan; supported by Mr. Tomlinson, Mr. Glenvil Hall, Mr. Buchanan and Mr. Key; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 36.]

ELECTIONS AND JURORS BILL,

"to amend the law relating to electoral registration and to voting at parliamentary and local government elections; to make provision with respect to jurors books; to amend the law relating to returning officers for Scottish constituencies; and to provide for matters connected with the purposes aforesaid," presented by Mr. Ede; supported by Mr. Westwood, the Attorney-General, Mr. Oliver, the Lord Advocate and Mr. Thomas Fraser; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 35.]

Orders of the Day — AGRICULTURE (ARTIFICIAL INSEMINATION) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

3.25 p.m.

The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Thomas Williams): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
After many disappointments, and the exercise of a large amount of patience, I have the honour to move the Second

Reading of this Bill for the second time. In the last Parliament, this small but, I think, important Measure was presented and received a very warm reception, and I hope it will be found no less acceptable on this occasion. In spite of a good deal of experience of artificial insemination in Russia, the United States, Canada, Denmark and certain other countries, it is still in its experimental stages here. My right hon. Friend the ex-Minister of Agriculture established in 1943 two experimental centres, one at Cambridge and one at Reading, and these, together with six private centres, have, in the meantime, provided us with very valuable information. However, they have also proved that we have still a good deal to learn about this method of breeding. Many problems remain for investigation, and an ordinary commercial centre is scarcely the right spot for research into them. Such a centre is bound to be more or less preoccupied with the ordinary provision of a constant and reliable service to farmers, so that special research centres are required.
Accordingly, if hon. Members turn to the Bill, they will find that Clause 1 authorises my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and myself to set up and operate artificial insemination centres, where research and experiments can be carried on and, of course, where practical checks can be applied in the light of experience. These research centres will, therefore, provide a limited service to adjoining farmers. Grants can also be made to private bodies or private persons, and I hope these agencies will be extremely useful for investigation into special problems allocated to them by one or other of the research centres.
Hitherto we in this country have thought of artificial insemination primarily for cows, but in the United States, as my predecessor well knows, a good deal of work has been carried out on bees. That has been largely due to an attempt to eradicate the foul brood disease and I understand that the experiments so far are quite encouraging. It is thought, therefore—and was thought also by my right hon. Friend the ex-Minister of Agriculture—that this method of upgrading our livestock might be useful for other animals and other classes of stock. Therefore we are asking for power to facilitate research and experiment into livestock generally.
The second main part of the Bill comprises Clauses 2, 3 and 4. As hon. Members will appreciate, the establishment of a centre for artificial insemination calls for quite a large sum of capital expenditure and will take quite a considerable time before it gets into full working order, and there may be heavy losses in the initial stages. Losses will be incurred because there are not too many good bulls in this country, and they are not cheap. Clauses 2 and 3 therefore enable the Secretary of State for Scotland and myself to underwrite approved losses in any accounting year for a period of five years, starting with 1st January, 1945, to 31st March, 1950. Also any centre started in the last of the five years can secure cover for its losses during the whole of its first year's working.
I hope it will be generally agreed that the underwriting of these losses in the early stages is in the national interest, because, while there can be obvious dangers in artificial insemination, it certainly holds out great promise and should help us to raise the standard of our livestock in this country. Especially should this be so with small herds where it is almost impossible for the small farmer either to have a first-class bull himself, or to secure its services. On the other hand, although losses for the first few years are to be underwritten by the Treasury, provision is made so that should profits be made the Exchequer may, later on, partially recoup its expenditure. It is proposed therefore that once a profit is reached, two-thirds of it will be returned to the Treasury, one-third being left with those who are running the centre as a sort of working reserve for the periods after Government assistance has finally passed away.
It is generally recognised that the authority to make grants should be confined to centres that are run by producer controlled organisations. With the passing of the 1943 Act, taking control over the use of semen, the intention was to avoid any commercial exploitation of this very delicate operation. Otherwise there were great possibilities of evil. All the various methods of control have been carefully reviewed. Cattle Breed societies were called into the discussions and representatives of the National Farmers' Union and of the Milk Marketing Board, and scientific experts were

also consulted. They recommended and I am sure the House will agree that artificial insemination should be developed as a national service.
This requires an orderly plan. No sectional interests or commercial firms should be able to participate. That is why, in general, licences will be restricted exclusively to farmer-controlled organisations such as the Milk Marketing Board, the Cattle Breed Societies and farmer co-operative organisations. That guarantees two things: that the farmers will have a voice in management and that the interests of users generally will be safeguarded. That, I believe, is strictly in accordance with experience in the United States, where farmer co-operative creamery centres are reported to be the most successful. My Department has established a strong advisory committee on which representative bodies are represented plus such technical experts as may be necessary. Similar conditions to this obtain in Scotland.
I think that perhaps the most pleasing feature of all, is that my predecessor was able to persuade the Milk Marketing Board, representing as they do the vast proportion of milk producers in the country, to play such an important part in this new development. I think this is a fine constructive job, and a natural development of the powers invested in this producer organisation. Clause 5 therefore enables the Milk Marketing Board to establish a centre in any part of England or Wales, and, I believe, Scotland, to serve not only registered milk producers within the area, but any dairy farmer who may require the service.
After all, livestock and livestock products are the mainstay of British agriculture. We must, therefore, endeavour to keep abreast of the times, and to take advantage of any new method of breeding. Particularly we should lose no opportunity of helping the very small man who has played such a noble part in endeavouring to increase the milk supply of this country during the period of food shortage. This artificial insemination idea is bound to create a wide demand for first-class bulls. I think therefore it is going to be a great opportunity for breeders, and I hope they will take full advantage of it.
Parliament has approved the principle of controlled and orderly development of


artificial insemination. This Bill, therefore, is the logical consequence to the Act of 1943. I have heard of no opposition to it in this House, and I do not think there can be much opposition outside. There is however a case on record where in one large block of offices there are notices indicating the meetings to be held and the subjects to be discussed. One notice was for "Artificial Insemination." On another notice board close by was a second notice. "Scrub Bulls Protest Meeting." That is almost an inevitable reaction to a Measure of this description. However I think that there are great possibilities in this method of attempting to improve our livestock, and I hope the House will give a Second Reading as readily as the previous House did earlier in this year.

3.37 P.m.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I am sure that the House will be glad to see this Bill take its place as the first Order on the Paper, after it has been hanging about at the tail-end of our programme for so many weeks. I should like to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman upon producing this Bill, upon his appointment, and upon the very lucid and brief speech with which he has re-introduced the Measure. I myself, after so many delays have overtaken this Bill, do not propose to detain the House for any length of time. I would advise my hon. Friends not to vote against the Second Reading, although there are one or two points which it might be desirable to examine in Committee. The facts seem to be that the practice of artificial insemination is now fairly well-established here and in other countries, and it seems to me that it is clearly right that the agricultural Departments should concern themselves in this matter, and should be able to assist and supervise its practice, and also assist in research into its potentialities. That, I gather, is the purpose of the Bill. As far as the financial provisions are concerned, they appear to me to be fair. Under Clause 3 (2), if there is any profit at all, the grants can be reduced by two-thirds of the profits, and Subsection (5) provides that the destination of such profits is to be the Exchequer. It is rather refreshing to see that whatever ideological brain storms there may be in other Departments, the Treasury still sticks firmly to the old-fashioned profit motive.
I welcome sincerely the participation of producer-controlled organisations in this work, and, as an ex-Minister of Agriculture, I think there is substance in what the right hon. Gentleman says on this point. It is a good step forward that these great bodies should concern themselves with an aspect of their common problems such as this. I also think it wise to take into counsel the breeding societies with their long experience and expert knowledge. There are many of these excellent bodies in this country. They sometimes show a tendency to believe that the breeds which they sponsor are the only ones that should be allowed, but they have done a great work in encouraging those breeds.
The main purpose behind the Bill is to assist the breeding of good livestock in this country, and, in the breeding of good livestock, I think I may say with modesty this country has always held a paramount position. Breeders in other parts of the world have often thought it wise to import male animals from this country, to maintain the stamina and purity of their flocks and herds, and in this way a great export trade has grown up in bulls, rams and stallions. I think it is true that it has been a very profitable part of our agricultural industry, and I have no doubt that, from time to time, it has been very refreshing to those in charge of our foreign exchange account. I see no reason why this great export industry, which we have held so long in this country, should be damaged by the provisions of the Bill, or the practice it supervises. But I would make the point that the future development of the practice should be watched by this House to see how it is affecting the export of livestock from this country. In so far as the Bill carries on the process of eliminating our old friend the scrub bull it is to be welcomed, and I hope it may be possible to make good strains of stock available to small farmers cheaply enough to make the attraction of the scrub bull diminish to vanishing point.
It is obvious that these practices will increase the scope and range of the scientific breeder. We may look, no doubt, for advances in the future, beyond the great achievements of the past. I think however that a word of caution is necessary. I am a little sceptical about the balance of good and evil which is sometimes the result of man's interference with natural selection. If one takes the case


of dogs for example, I am perfectly certain that the fox-terrier of today is not the dog he was when I was a boy, and I am sure the collie, perhaps the finest of our four-footed friends, bred as he has been for show purposes, is much inferior to what he was, before he got into the hands of breeders for show. Outbreaks of hysteria in high-bred spaniels I think are due to their being bred for show to an extent beyond the tolerance of nature.
It is true that this vice of breeding animals for show is not entirely absent from horse and cattle breeding, yet I think the breeders both of horses and cattle have motives of a more sensible character than the mere enumeration of points in the estimate of show judges. The thoroughbred horse in this country has been bred for speed and stamina, and is, of course, probably the finest horse in the world, and our breeders of cattle in the past have concentrated on either milk production or beef production. There is no doubt that the Aberdeen Angus and Shorthorn breeds of today are much better than were their progenitors and there is no doubt in my mind that the British Friesian is a better beast than his ancestors. I sometimes wonder whether, in seeking to attain these ends in milk and beef production, the breeders have given enough attention to the power of the animal to resist disease. Like all of us cattle live in a world peopled by pathogenic micro-organisms, and what the doctor or the veterinary surgeon can order is no substitute for that mysterious inner defence mechanism which destroys the invading germ in the living anmals.
We are suffering appalling losses every year from animal diseases, as the right hon. Gentleman will agree. Although the strongest steps have been taken, and will no doubt continue to be taken by him, as they were by his predecessors, to strengthen the campaign against disease, tuberculosis, Johne's disease and contagious abortion are all exacting an immense toll from the herds, year after year. I may be wrong; I speak merely from personal observation which is necessarily limited—but these diseases seem often to attack the most highly bred and civilised animals. The more mongrel breeds seem to be more immune. I wonder if with all our achievements in cattle breeding we have not omitted in the past

to give sufficient attention to this aspect of the breeding problem. It is far better, in my judgment, to lose a few gallons of milk, or a few pounds of beef, if, for that price, you can get an animal more robust, more resistant, and more capable of destroying, by the antidotes which its own system engenders, the host of germs and viruses which surround, and plague it.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned bees as being included within the scope of the Bill. The bee-keeper is plagued with Isle of Wight disease, and other diseases, and already, in the breeding of bees, there is a body of knowledge which enables one to say that some breeds show more resistance than others. The same is true of poultry; and one knows how potato disease has been most successfully encountered. But with all the spraying in the world and anti-fly measures which can be taken, nothing can show quite as good a resistance as the seed potato, which will stand up for itself in the battle of life. Therefore, while welcoming this Bill, and hoping that it will have a good passage, and welcoming the right hon. Gentleman's lucid explanation, I have ventured to occupy a few minutes in turning the attention of those who are to operate it, to what is perhaps the next great step in the scientific study of breeding, namely, the breeding of animals that can resist disease.

3.48 p.m.

Mr. Dye: I welcome the Bill, and also the observations made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. W. S. Morrison). I think his arguments are very strong in support of the Bill, namely, that if we are to have our herds freer from disease, we ought to choose the sires from herds which have been known, in the past, to be very free from disease. Therefore, the records of the herds, from which we choose the animals to be used for the greater amount of breeding in the future, which will arise from artificial insemination, are of the greatest importance. It seems to me that this Bill is of importance not only of it self, but for the part it will play in the great plans that are to be developed in the improvements in agriculture.
There are two aspects of the matter which seem to me to be of importance. What we have witnessed, in the past, has been the uneven development of British


agriculture. Here, as the right hon. Gentleman has said, we have some of the best stock in the world. Indeed, we have been able to export to other parts of the world; and yet, a few miles away from the good stock will be found some very bad stock. That, again, is an argument for this Bill, provided that, in the development of our artificial insemination centres, we cover the whole country, and provide a service for every farmer in the country. If, after the initial development, we find that there are some areas which have not the advantage of this Measure, then, I think we shall still have that uneven development. We should expect, as a result of this Bill, together with the rest of the Government's policy for British agriculture, to see this service developed in such a way that, in the course of the next five or ten years, every one of our dairy cattle shall have been sired by abull which comes from a line of cattle known, both for the great quantity of milk they produce, and the healthiness of their stock.
What we are aiming at, of course, must be to get into our dairy herds—into every dairy herd in the land—thoseanimals which, with the least attention and work, will from a certain quantity of feeding stuffs, make the greatest quantity of pure milk, free from the possibility of disease. That should be the aim of every dairy farmer in the country. If, when this service is provided, there are some who do not take advantage of it to upgrade their cattle, then I think the Minister should have within his power, the possibility of eliminating them from the realm of British farming. After all, what we must aim at, is a very much higher standard, both in dairy farming and in general fanning, of efficiency, and desire to have nothing but the best. I heard an hon. Member say in this House, an evening or two ago, that this country must export or perish. It seems to me, that if we can increase the production of purer and richer milk, this country will be a long while perishing. The more milk, beef, and honey we can produce at home the greater the assurance that this old country will live on; and what will perish will be disease and idleness, and the things which are not beautiful to look upon, in the country side. I, therefore, heartily support this Measure. I hope it will, indeed, be a great scheme for the revival and building up of British agriculture; so that out of

this war, we shall see a finer countryside than we have ever known in the past.

3.55 P.m.

Sir Ralph Glyn: While welcoming this Bill, there are two points which I should like to put to the right hon. Gentleman. One is whether further investigation will be made into the radius of effectiveness of these centres. It is very important that this should be a uniform system throughout the country. I understand that in Denmark and in South America, the radius that is possible largely exceeds that at present laid down at Shinfield, which is only 15 miles. If the right hon. Gentleman is considering the establishment of other centres, quite obviously, if you can, by research and investigation, increase the range of each of the centres set up, so you will increase the benefits of this Measure for British agriculture.
One more point, in regard to the cows that are used. The agricultural research station at Compton, which happens to be within my constituency, has done most valuable work in inquiry into cattle disease, and the superintendent there has been able to prove, I think, that we have inclined, as the right hon. Gentleman speaking for the Opposition said just now, to look upon cows more as milking machines than animals. The more you raise cattle under artificial conditions, which do not give them the hardihood derived from exposure to the elements, the more you reduce their stamina. I hope that it may be possible for the right hon. Gentleman to consider whether, in most of the milking herds of the country, it would not be a good thing when some cows have reached their final stages, to have their last calving exposed outside, instead of within the protection of some yard. A curious thing is, that cows calving in artificial conditions undoubtedly do not have the natural resistance to the elements. They are more susceptible to disease, and the reports of the agricultural research station at Compton, spread over a considerable period, seem to prove this. It would be unfortunate if this great scheme of artificial insemination were not, apart from the proper selection of bulls, to succeed, owing to the cows used not being such hardy animals as they used to be.
I think that the veterinary service of the country ought to be encouraged in


every possible way. The House realises that the number of veterinary surgeons, now in practice, is far below what is required for a prosperous agriculture. Unless we are able to encourage young men and women to go into the veterinary profession, it will be very difficult especially with the small man to carry out this scheme, which requires veterinary assistance. I think it ought to be possible for farmers, who are in a small way, to be able to make an annual contribution for the services of a "vet," whenever these are required. Often, the small man does not call in a veterinary surgeon quickly enough, because he does not want to pay the fees.
There was a scheme under the Ministry of Agriculture, I believe, with regard to the examination of dairy herds, based on that principle, with a view to ensuring that expert knowledge should be brought in, at the earliest possible moment. I think that is of very great importance for the success of this artificial insemination scheme; and that everything should be done through the Ministry of Education to make known what great opportunities there are, in the field of veterinary surgery, for improving our herds. A very large number of people in the country today are determined to improve the stamina and general efficiency of British agriculture, and I am quite certain that what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cirencester (Mr. W. S. Morrison) said, about resistance to disease, is of paramount importance. It is really diagnosis which is necessary. Foot and mouth disease has cost this country a large sum, and if we could concentrate as much scientific attention on the elimination of that disease, as on improving weapons of war, we should have done something to help our country, which would have been very much worth while. I feel that the Ministry of Labour Appointments Board and the Ministry of Education might collaborate with the right hon. Gentleman in making known, to parents and others, the great opportunities that are open for first-class veterinary surgeons.

4 p.m.

Mr. Paget: I rise to welcome this Bill, and, in particular, to welcome what the Minister said, in presenting it to the House. If this Bill is

going to do any good, it must create a national service, it has to be conducted on an orderly plan; there must be a standing advisory committee, to see to the whole scheme, and to see that its operation is conducted in an orderly manner. I believe that it is tremendously important.
When I first read this Bill I did not like it. That was not because I was afraid that stock produced by artificial insemination would not be so good individually as stock produced by natural methods. Frankly, I think that is pure superstition. The reason why I felt doubts as to whether this Bill would prove effective in improving our stock was this: You do not solve your breeding problems merely by making good bulls generally available. You can breed just as bad stock by using good stock as by using bad stock if you mate your good stock injudiciously. That does not merely apply as between breeds, it applies within them. For instance, if you mate a Derby winner and an Oaks winner, you will sometimes, in fact very often, get an animal that will not win a selling plate. Successful breeding is not merely a question of selecting good individuals; it is not as easy a job as that.
Perhaps the House will forgive me if I give a short explanation of the scientific background of this problem, in so far as we know it. I have been warned that the House hates to be lectured, but if I put this explanation very shortly indeed, I hope the House will not be bored. When two animals mate the process that takes place is that a chromosome from the male comes into contact with a chromosome of the female. A chromosome may be likened to a centipede. It is a thing with legs in pairs down the sides of it. Each of those legs is called a gene. When the mating takes place, one of each pair of these pairs of legs in the male comes into contact with one of each pair of legs in the female, and so you get a new chromosome, from which comes all the heritable qualities of the offspring and which contains one leg or heritable factor from each pair posesssed by each parent. Now, not all those heritable qualities which are inherited from each parent have any visible effect. Some are called dominants, some are called recessives, and it is the recessives which produce the great problem of the breeder.
Let me take a simple example. If you mate the yellow pea with a green pea all your first generation will be green peas, but nevertheless they will all have a yellow recessive. When you interbreed with that first generation, you will get a percentage of yellow peas where the two yellow recessives come together, but the majority of your peas will be green peas. Some will be pure breeding green peas, which is where the two dominant green factors have come together, and some will have a yellow recessive. All will look the same. The real problem of the breeder, if green is the breeding point he is aiming at, is to produce a pure breeding green pea. They all look the same, and the only way you can find out the difference is by knowing the back pedigree and being able to know whether that particular family throws out yellows. That is a simple illustration.
With cattle breeding you have to know the pedigree some distance back to know whether you are going to get the desirable characteristics for which you are aiming or whether you are going to get undesirable offshoots, and when the right hon. and learned Member for Cirencester (Mr. W. S. Morrison) spoke, I could not agree with him more as to the desirability of breeding for constitution. Constitution is a point like any other point, but you will not get constitution in a fixed sense, so that it will breed true, by breeding mongrels. You must get a pure breed constitution if you are going to reproduce constitution with certainty. That is the object of the breeder; not merely to breed good cattle—that is easy enough—but to breed cattle which are not only good in themselves but, because they are pure, will pass on their characteristics. The desirable characteristics in a dairy cow do not spring from a single gene, they come from a particular combination or pattern of heritable characteristics, each working on the other, but it is not by any means always the same pattern that produces the same result. Take, for instance, the shorthorn and the redpoll. There you get substantially the same fattening qualities, substantially the same milking qualities, and substantially the same quick maturing qualities, but you get them as a result of a different genetic pattern. So if you inter-breed those two you may be all right in your first generation but, after a bit, you will be getting bad mongrels.
That is not merely confined to where you hybridise two different breeds. It can happen within a single breed. If I may take an example of that let me take the thoroughbred race horse. Different breeders in different parts of the country have achieved the combination which goes to make up a good race horse, but they have achieved it by different breeding methods. That has not been recognised, with the result that these horses and mares, bred on different lines, have been mated. The result is that breeding race horses is the biggest gamble in the world. The thoroughbred breeder today has not the faintest idea of what he is breeding, because he has got his breed so mixed up that he is really encountering all the difficulties which come from breeding mongrels.
There is, I think, only one stud in this country that has concentrated upon developing a single line and thereby continues to get good results, generation after generation, and that is Lord Derby's stud. Lord Derby's stud has succeeded because it has developed the line of Polymelus, and I think every one of the Stanley House stallions is inbred to Polymelus. They have developed a single line, and within that stud they have developed a pure bred line; and apart from those Stanley House stallions we, who are the creators of the thoroughbred, have to a large extent to go to France and Italy for our best stallions. That is what can happen to a breed if you do not develop pure lines within the breed. Very much the same sort of thing happened to the shorthorns, but during the last 20 or 30 years, within various herds, pure bred lines have been developed. And so with the shorthorns which 20 years ago were very nearly as much a gamble to breed as thoroughbred race horses, it is now possible to know what you are breeding—to be sure, for instance, of getting a good milker.
It is on lines of that sort that this problem should be approached. What we want first is that the artificial insemination centres should have not merely good bulls but bulls which are drawn from lines of breeding which are common in the district, so that we will be developing distinct lines of breed, and we want sequences of bulls coming from those same lines, so that in each district we shall be building up a pure line of breeding within


the breed. Then we need to co-ordinate with that the bull licensing system. Frankly, there cannot be anything very much more absurd than looking at a bull and saying, "We will license him to be a dairy bull." When you look at a dairy cow and you can see an udder and milk vein you have some clue as to her milking capacity, but when you look at a bull you have not a clue of any sort, and nobody can say, merely from looking at a bull, whether it is going to get good milkers. And yet that is the primary test for the selection of bulls. Indeed, under the 1931 Act the one important thing, which is breeding, does not come into the matter at all. Indeed, the only reason why the 1931 Act has worked is because the livestock inspectors have shown a great deal of good sense and have, quite illegally, considered the breeding of bulls. What we want is to license bulls not on their appearance but according to their pedigree, and to license bulls not generally but for a particular herd, because a bull which may do a great service in one herd will be a menace to another. That is important.
Lastly, with regard to the bull subsidy scheme, I myself would prefer to see the Ministry go in for buying their own bulls and leasing the bulls in a district. That would be a much better way of doing it. On the other hand, if they are going to subsidise, only bulls of the particular breeding line within the breed which they propose to encourage in that district should be subsidised. We do most urgently need a co-ordinated scheme which is going to build up within the breeds and within the districts pure-bred lines upon which we can rely. Here one of the most essential things we must look for, in which I agree very strongly with what the right hon. and learned Member for Cirencester said, is constitution. I was much comforted when the Minister said that this Bill was to be worked within a plan, because when I first looked at the Bill I had fears in reference to the people who were to administer the scheme, because, as regards the Milk Marketing Board, what they are primarily concerned with is to take the immediate produce, good milk from the first generation. That can be got very easily by hybridising. You can get the first generation by crossing breeds and you will probably

get the advantages of both breeds because good qualities tend to be dominant, but you will lose the purity of your stock and get your headache on the second generation.
I met in Cumberland a man who was taking some very nice Friesian cross bred heifers from his own shorthorn stock to market. I asked, "What are you going to do?" He said, "I shall sell them. They will sell well, they will produce milk, and I am passing on the headache of the next generation to somebody else." That is what I am afraid might happen here. You will get Friesian bulls introduced, because they will, on the first generation, probably produce the most milk, but if you do that you are going to mongrelise your stock and lay up trouble in the future. Therefore, I hope that very great care will be taken to see that breeding societies do not go into competition to push bulls of their own particular breed; that a long view is taken and not merely the first generation view; and that the whole thing is co-ordinated and worked according to plan. I have a further suggestion and that is that the calves produced by this system should be earmarked, so that we can trace how they are bred, and can know how the things we are doing are working out. There is just one other point, that of range, referred to by an hon. Member opposite. The Cambridge insemination centre is at the moment inseminating cows from Cumberland, a very wide range.

4.16 p.m.

Sir John Barlow: I rise with great fear and trepidation to address this House for the first time, and I therefore ask the indulgence of the House. This may seem a very curious topic on which to speak for the first time, but I do so for two reasons. The first is because I have the honour to represent a large agricultural area in Cheshire, the Eddisbury division, in which there are many small farmers, who are keenly interested in artificial insemination. Secondly, I wish to speak about this subject, because I have the honour to serve on a committee appointed in an advisory capacity on this subject by the Minister, which he has already mentioned. It seems to me that the chief use of artificial insemination, for the time being, is to help small farmers. Half the


farmers in this country farm less than 50 acres. Some 67 per cent. of the farmers in this country own 15 cows or less. Therefore, the vast majority of farmers are very small men, and they cannot afford to keep an adequate bull, so they use any old bull which they can in the district, which is what is known as a scrub bull. We know that a scrub bull costs about £40 a year to keep and maintain. Therefore, it is wholly uneconomic for these bad scrub bulls to be used, when, by artificial insemination centres, a very much better type of bull could be at the service of small farmers.
We know that a vast number of cattle in this country are very badly bred. They are cross-bred and they produce comparatively little milk. The average gallonage per cow at the present time is something like 500 gallons, which is very low indeed. That means that there are very large numbers of cows producing less than 500 gallons, because we know that there are many which are producing far more, say, up to 1,000 gallons. There is no reason why herds should not be established all over the country, and improved to produce 700 or 800 gallons per cow, but it cannot be done on present lines. I believe that as artificial insemination increases—it will have to be done slowly to begin with—very much better bulls and very much better stock will be at the disposal of these small farmers. That is the principal reason why I urge the passing of this Bill.
Reference has been made to disease, which is very great in some districts. It is known that certain of these diseases such as contagious abortion and trichonomiasis can be largely controlled by artificial insemination. At present, the bull is often infected by a cow, and then the bull transmits the disease to another cow. In some districts the spread of disease is so great that the small farmer is having the greatest difficulty in getting his cows in calf. It is known that disease is spread considerably in this way. It is also known that certain diseases can be controlled to a large extent by means of artificial insemination. That is another very urgent reason for increasing artificial insemination centres. I have already said that at present it costs probably a minimum of £40 a year to keep even the worst scrub bull. If a man has a small typical herd

of 15 cows, that is very expensive for him. The artificial insemination centres are proposing to charge, for commercial cattle, about 25s. a service for a first-class bull. When I say "a first-class bull" I mean that the bull shall have a milk record behind him for two or three generations. That is of the greatest importance. We know that the influence of milk can be increased by breeding, and if one gets a soundly bred bull, with adequate milk and butter fats behind him, that will be passed on to the progeny, and is much the quickest way of improving the dairy livestock of the country. For those reasons I wish to see this Bill become an Act, because I feel it can be of enormous help to the great body of small farmers in this country.

4.22 p.m.

Major Wise: It is my very pleasant duty to congratulate the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Sir J. Barlow) on his maiden speech. I do so more particularly because, being a farmer, I am certain that what he will have to say to us in the House in the future will be helpful. I hope that so far as agriculture is concerned he will voice his views on every possible occasion. Although he has started his course on an Artificial Insemination Bill, I am certain he need have no hesitation whatever in joining our Debates on future occasions. Like hon. Members who have preceded me, I welcome this Bill. It has been a long time coming, but at last it has been born, and I hope that its course through the House will be speedy, and that when it comes into operation it will prove of service to the farming community. I hope there will not be a practice of holding up agricultural Bills. We have seen this Billon the Order Paper for so long. We hope that Bills which will have to come from this side of the House in order to assist agriculture will not be delayed on future occasions in the way this one has been.
The great point about this Bill, which I think must interest all of us, is that whereas during the past few days or weeks we have been talking so much about the science of destruction, here we are introducing a science which, I hope, will create life, although it may be animal life, for the whole agricultural community. In the past, the losses which we


have incurred through bad breeding, abortion and the barrenness of cows have been very remarkable. I am certain that if these centres are established throughout the Kingdom, fanners generally will welcome the service which the centres can put at their disposal. As an industry, we are becoming more scientifically minded. We have adapted our methods of production both in regard to the mechanisation of implements and in the artificial feeding of plants and all our other crops. The time has come when the farming industry, as a whole, must decide that our stock producing must be conducted upon scientific lines. If this Bill helps us to produce what has been described as healthy stock, then it will have served a very good purpose indeed. I do not think that as a class we need be afraid of the Bill. It is one of a number of Bills which, I hope, will be helpful to the industry, and, therefore, we must take advantage of it.
One point which has been referred to frequently in the course of the Debate is the selection of the stock bulls. I am most anxious that whatever stock bulls are selected for this purpose, not only should they have a record of pedigree behind them, though I am not unduly disturbed in regard to pedigree, but that whatever bulls are selected they should be, if you like, proved stock getters. Ten or 15 years ago I was concerned in an honorary capacity with the purchase of bulls by the Soviet for the introduction of artificial insemination into that country. Representatives of the Soviet came to this country to purchase a number of our bulls. I was particularly struck by the care and attention they gave to those selections. The bulls were vetted on the farms, they were then vetted at the home ports, and they were again vetted on arrival, and if they did not then meet the standard which the Soviet had set up some of those bulls were returned to this country. The whole process was one of great care and discrimination. I hope that whatever bulls or whatever stock we may use for this particular purpose, the same care and attention which has been part and parcel of the agricultural prosperity and improvement in the Soviet will be used here.
There is one point on which I am not quite clear, and which I wish to take up with the Minister. Clause 1 deals with

the question of research, and under that Clause it is possible for the Minister to contribute towards any expenditure incurred by any society or person in the matter of research or experiment. It is clear from that that it will be possible for an individual to carry out research and experiment in artificial insemination. Clause 2 completely ignores the individual who has been active enough or who is prepared to carry out research for the benefit of the industry. He is not able to set up any artificial insemination centre or to receive a grant. Having brought him into Clause 1, I think it might be possible in some way or another to bring him into Clause 2. I may be wrong, but I feel that we do not want to limit artificial insemination. If an individual stockbreeder or farmer is prepared to go to the expense and trouble of carrying out research and experiment in this matter, then I think some provision might be put into Clause 2, to allow him to operate a centre. The inspection and control of the centre will, no doubt, be sufficient. The centres will be licensed and I think there is some protection for the community in that respect. I bring this matter to the notice of the Minister and perhaps if he replies he will say whether my interpretation of these Clauses is right or wrong.
I welcome the Bill and I hope that we may feel assured that in passing it we have added something to the prosperity of the agricultural industry, and the community as a whole.

4.33 P.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Corbett: The House accepted the principle of artificial insemination during the last Session. I must confess I look on the practice with suspicion and see in it certain dangers. We have managed to breed cattle for a great many years without adopting this practice, and for my part I heartily dislike it. However, medical science has made use of all sorts of dodges to effect cures and I look on this practice as a stepping stone to the improvement of various herds and as giving opportunities to the small man, but not as a method for adoption as a general practice. I think it would be a great danger if we were too readily to extend this practice widely, until we have a great deal more experience of its results.
I have studied the licensing rules drawn up by the Minister of Agriculture for


these centres. They seem to me to be very adequate and to cover a great many necessary factors. They make provision against disease in the centres, for the staff being properly qualified and for the keeping of records, which is of great importance. But there are one or two points which they do not cover and which I would recommend to the Minister's consideration. It is important that the cost of this service to the consumer—to the man whose cows are to be served by artificial means—should be as low as possible. It is recommended in the Minister's regulations that a minimum of 25s. for service should be the general fee, or £3 for service if you choose your bull. Provision is also made for more expensive bulls and it is recommended that a service from an expensive bull should be at the rate of one per cent. of the cost of the animal. I hope that the Minister will keep an eye on these costs, so as to provide a service, as liberal as possible, to the poor man and so that this practice is not made a profit-making business. I do not think we want that. If you take, for example, a bull costing £300, his services are available at one per cent., that is £3 per service. It is possible for a bull to serve at many as 1,000 cows. If he does so that bull will mean £3,000 a year and the bull may be used for four years and bring in £12,000, which is a pretty good income. That matter should be watched.
That brings me to the number of cows a bull should serve by this means. There are dangers in allowing them to serve too many. I think the Minister should impose a limit. One hon. Member has said that there is a limit of 15 miles at one centre. I think that at the centres in Reading and Cambridge there is no limit and semen can be sent all over the country. We have already had a dissertation from the non. Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) on breeding. You may have a bull which turns out to be a complete failure. You have only to look at Derby winners, to see that many do not get good stock. If you allow a bull to serve 1,000 cows you will not know what stock he is producing, at any rate for three years—until the cows grow to maturity and come into milk. I think therefore the Minister should limit the number of cows. Perhaps he would consider whether he should not limit all bulls during their first year, until their calves can be seen. He might make a limit for

three years until the stock is known to be good. Proven sires could then be used without restriction. There is, of course, the danger of inbreeding from this method, but that is not a very serious matter at present.
There are no regulations in the licensing rules I have seen, which make it illegal to use bulls for crossing. I think we have sufficient breeds of cattle in this country already. I am not sure how many they are, but I believe there are over 30 and I feel one of the first steps to improve them should be to cut out cross breeding. It has a useful purpose to serve, but, on the whole, I feel it is unnecessary. Most of our bad herds have been produced by indiscriminate crossing. A man will buy a selection of cows of many breeds in the market and then use one bull and then another—a Shorthorn and then a Friesian, and when he finds the milk is the watery stuff which the old-time Friesian used to produce, he might try a Guernsey in order to produce good milk. But he does not do anything of the sort and a thoroughly bad herd is produced. I recommend the Minister to cut out crossing altogether. Crossing has one purpose to serve; there are bad dairy herds, and they should be put to a beef bull and their calves used as stores and sold for fat-stock and nothing else. I recommend that course to the Minister so as to weed out the produce of all bad cows.
I do not, as0 I say, like this practice. I do not think it is really necessary, and I hope it will not be adopted by the leading herds. It is, I feel, a rather "chancy" business, not yet proven and I dislike departing from the natural method of breeding. I look upon it as a medical aid to improvement, and I hope the herd societies will rule it out and not allow calves produced by this method, to be entered.

4.41 p.m.

Mr. Walker: I feel that I am trepassing into the peaceful atmosphere of a very happy family this afternoon, because everyone seems perfectly agreed on this Bill. I notice in the first words of the Memorandum that the purpose of this Bill
is to facilitate the development of the practice of artificial insemination of livestock in Great Britain as a means of better breeding and more efficient production.


I hoped not to be speaking on this subject at all, because I am not an agriculturist and I do not represent an agricultural division. Perhaps the only justification I have for taking any part in this Debate is that I happen to be a member of the milk committee of my county council. Of course, a committee of that description has as its primary business to see that the general public gets a good and a clean milk supply. I have been somewhat astonished at these committees to be repeatedly told by certain of the farming community, that it is quite possible for a farmer to produce clean milk, even though it is from cows in a dirty cowshed, but there is one point they always emphasise and that is that if we do want a good and clean milk supply, it must come from good stock.
I have been reading a book recently and by giving a quotation from it I may strike a discordant note in the Debate. The book is entitled "Farming and Gardening for Health or Disease," by Sir Albert Howard, a great authority on soil and soil production. He condemns emphatically the use of chemicals in the soil, and attributes all the evils of agriculture, not only in this country but in countries in Europe, South Africa, New Zealand, Australia and even America, to the large quantities of chemicals that are being used in the soil. He asserts—to condense all he has to say in one sentence—that if we want a healthy people, we must have a healthy soil. About this insemination he has one very condemnatory sentence, in which he says that insemination is a monstrous innovation that can only end in life erosion. An opinion of that sort coming from a man Mice Sir Albert Howard is, I think, worth being noted. He would not make use of language of that description if there were not some kind of evil underlying this process, this scientific idea of artificial insemination.
I have seen something of a far more condemnatory nature in a letter which appeared in the county newspaper of my district. The right hon. Gentleman opposite knows the farmer who wrote this letter as well as I do. He uses some terrifically strong language about artificial insemination. With your permission, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I will read some extracts from this letter. I am not saying that I agree with the opinions expressed in it,

but I feel that before we embark on a venture of this description, my right hon. Friend who has introduced this Bill is doing the right thing in setting up these research committees, because we want to know the truth of the matter. We want to know whether artificial insemination is going to be a good thing or an evil thing. I would ask hon. Members to listen to what this farmer has to say. He speaks with a certain amount of authority. I hope my right hon. Friend will not mind the kind of language that this man has used. He says:
It is pitiable to think that the present Government are continuing the ghoulish wholesale insemination of cattle, which will ruin all stock—ruin farmers and breeders and England. One of the worries of breeders is that many cattle have not sufficient sex now; in a very short time where insemination is practised, there will be no sex and the stocks will be barren.…No man will be able to afford to bring up bulls if this horrible insemination continues. Wholesale insemination will kill the cattle in time. I mention the following facts solely to show that I know what I am talking about.
My herd of pedigree dual purpose Shorthorn cattle (there are over 500 herds) are first in Lancashire for the highest average milk yield for one lactation. I won first prize and two champion cups at the Royal Lancashire Show for the best dual-purpose Shorthorn cow to be judged as conformation, to be milked at the show, quality and quantity of milk to be taken into consideration. There were 46 entries from the leading breeders in England and elsewhere.…I have no axes to grind. I have done my utmost for over half a century for all farmers for the breeding of the best cattle, sheep, Shire horses and show jumpers, and for England, and I ask every farmer and breeder…to put his foot down on the deadly crimes of wholesale insemination and in-breeding. I refused to sell Cark Forest King for 2,000 guineas because I wished to keep it for farmers in the north-west.
As I said, I am not an agriculturist, but I am a Member of this House, and I want to know, in view of evidence of that discription, whether or not it is the right thing for us to spend in the next five years £250,000 in research upon this. I do not know if this man's opinion is the general opinion of the farming community, but I know that he is a man of authority and a very sensible farmer, and I know he has won prizes all over the country for the stock he has produced. If that is his opinion, I bow to it to a certain extent, and I think it ought to be listened to. Those are my reasons for speaking in this Debate. We should be very careful in what we do. According to the books and articles I have read,


agriculture has suffered very much indeed from scientific interference, especially from the use of chemicals. Because of advertisements of the chemical industries, farmers have been led to think that they can rejuvenate their farms—stock and soil—by the use of chemicals, and now we have the evidence that the use of chemicals is destructive in the very last degree. Therefore, I think we should be careful, and I want my right hon. Friend to be careful, as we proceed in this matter of artificial insemination. If it is a good thing we should go ahead, but if it is an evil thing it should be left alone. We cannot afford to play tricks with our milk and food supplies. What we ought to do is to secure by all possible means a really good food and milk supply so that we can have the joy of seeing a happy and healthy people.

4.50 p.m.

Colonel Clarke: I gather that the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken fears that this method of breeding will, in the course of time, exercise a debilitating effect on stock. I hope he will forgive me if I do not follow him more than to say I do not share that view. I had a scientific training, and I see no biological reason at all why it should. Anyhow, it is not going to be universally adopted—not for a long time, anyway—and there will be plenty of opportunity for checking. I have no doubt that veterinary officers will watch it very closely, and personally I have no fears on that score. This Bill is an old friend, and I am glad to see that the names on the back of it have not all changed. The few remarks that I propose to make this afternoon are directed to try and help in its success.
I feel the most vital part about it is the matter of cost. I do not mean the cost of the whole scheme, which is to be £250,000. I mean the cost to the individual farmer. The hon. Member for Eddisbury (Sir J. Barlow), in his very excellent maiden speech, and the hon. and gallant Member for Ludlow (Lieut.-Colonel Corbett) have already touched on this, and I do not think I need say very much about it. However, I do want to make the point again that the object of the whole scheme is to raise the general standard of our herds, and I feel that the herds which are most vitally affected

are the small herds. The farmer who is most vitally affected is the man who keeps a small herd of cows and does not keep a bull, or the man who keeps the cheapest breed of bull that he is allowed by the regulations. The man who has no bull at all is the one whom one meets leading a cow to his friend who has a bull. That man does not go round with a cheque book and a fountain pen. In my part of the country he has usually got a rather dirty pound note in his trouser pocket, and that is the usual fee. I think it is the same in most parts of the country. Therefore, I hope the Minister will do his best to keep these fees down to somewhere like £1 or 25s., and that for a really good bull.
I think it was the hon. and gallant Member for Ludlow who said that the fees should range from 25s. for ordinary service to £3 for a bull that was chosen by the farmer. I hope it will be a good one, because if it is not the scheme will not work as it should. There should not be a tremendous difference between the two. I know that the man who keeps a cheap bull will get certain advantages which may enable him to pay a little more. He will not have to house the bull or feed it, and on that score I think there will be a certain advantage from the humanitarian point of view, because on small farms very often the bull is the worse treated animal on the farm, ill-housed, seldom exercised and not too well fed. That should be improved, and with certain breeds there will be an advantage in not handling the bull, which is very often a source of anxiety. Certain breeds—Ayrshires, for example—are highly strung animals. The farmer will be quit of that. If the scheme is to be a success, it must meet the small farmer who keeps a cheap bull, and the man who has got no bull at all and who goes round to the farmer with the cheap bull.
I hope the Minister will give us an assurance that he will do his best to see that the fees to small farmers are between 20s. and 25s.—preferably the former. He has the powers. He is able to give grants which, if people will not conform to what he desires, he will be able to withhold. I hope he will not be tempted to get back the £250,000 by increasing those fees, because I think we should have a cheap service.

4.56 P.m.

Mr. Wilfrid Roberts: There has been little criticism of this Bill tonight. In reply to one hon. Member who asked if the scheme had really been tried out, I think it is worth pointing out that, as in some other fields, research work was, I believe, done here in England many years ago. In fact, in Cambridge under Dr. Hammond, the principles and practices of artificial insemination were established before the war, but it fell to other countries to practise it on a large scale before we did. In Denmark, the Soviet Union and the United States very large numbers of cattle and sheep have been bred in this way. A number of generations of cattle have been so bred successfully. When I was a member of a party that represented this House in the Soviet Union last winter we were told that 50,000,000 head of stock had been bred by artificial insemination in that country. This practice is not so very new or revolutionary, and I am one of those of the large majority who welcome the Bill and congratulate the Minister on getting it as far as its Second Reading at last.
There are, however, some points which arise. One suggestion which was made, that the veterinary officers who would be required at these stations could be of service to the small farmer in ways other than simply dealing with artificial insemination, raises the difficulty that there are already so many different advisory organisations and different officials representing different bodies, helping, advising and to some extent controlling the farmer. I do not know if it would be possible for the veterinary officer who will be attached to these artificial insemination centres, to advise also on other breeding and disease problems for the benefit of the farmers for whom the artificial insemination centres are being run. As has been pointed out in this Debate by the hon. Member for Abingdon (Sir R. Glyn), there is already a very great shortage of veterinary surgeons, and I hope the Minister will be able to relieve that shortage soon. It would be possible to use the veterinary surgeons attached to these stations in assisting farmers in their breeding and other disease problems. I do not know whether the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to say when he replies whether that suggestion would be possible under these schemes.
Another danger which has been pointed out is the possibility that the centres will concentrate too much upon milk. I hope that that will not be so, and I do not see that it is necesary. The great advantage of these centres is for the small farmer, who can have his milk production a great deal raised before he gets to the 1,000 gallon average, and who is at the present time using a very indifferent bull. I am afraid the great danger is that the standard of health of the cows will be under mined by producing too much milk, but at any rate I hope that some of the breeds used will be those which have good stamina. I do not know that some of the milk breeds necessarily have less stamina than the others. In the North of England, where I come from, Ayrshires have become very popular. They have some very good points and they also have some bad ones. We also have the dairy shorthorn in Cumberland and it is really a breed of my particular county. It has great stamina and some dual purpose, which will help the milk breeds.
At Cambridge, where I visited one of the artificial insemination centres, I was glad to find a bull which had been bred in my own county. It does not seem to me that the danger of overbreeding is very great if the policy of the artificial in semination centres is wisely controlled. I do not want to delay the House—

Mr. Gallacher: Hear, hear. Let us get on to Tummel Garry.

Mr. Roberts: I would like to ask how many centres there are. There are one at Reading and one at Cambridge and I believe there are other stations already in operation. We were told by the Prime Minister that he envisaged orderly development, and I join with him in so doing. I ask the Minister what he really intends as the number of centres which can be established in the next year or two? What is the orderly plan of development? It will be important for the Parliamentary Secretary to give us answers to those questions and to tell us what administratively can be carried out. What is more important, so far as can be seen at the present moment, is the number of stations and the sort of size of the districts they will cover.
I join with other hon. Members in wishing the Bill success. I believe that it will


raise the quality of some of our not-so-good stock. We have first-class pedigree herds but they will not require this Measure, which is for farmers who cannot afford expensive bulls.

5.5 P.m.

Mr. York: The hon. Member for North Cumberland (Mr. W. Roberts) had the experience of seeing a Northern bull in a Cambridge centre. I shall wish to take that point a little farther than he did. He touched upon the question of concentrating on dual purpose, but I should first like to issue a very strong warning that this matter is not, at any rate for the moment, a long-term policy. It is a short-term policy, for a definite practical end, and so long as the industry of the country regards it in that light, I do not think that we can come to any harm. To say, as people are saying on extremely weak facts, that this practice of artificial insemination does no harm to breeds, and to call it superstition as did an hon. Member on the other side, is to base one's arguments upon no known facts.
I agree that we have interfered in many ways with human and animal bodies, but interference with the blood stream and the nervous system affects only the body whereas in interfering with the reproductive organs of the body, we are dealing with the transmission of the spirit and the life between one animal and another. When we get down to that depth, we should proceed very cautiously before putting any hopes upon that system. This practice may be of use in upgrading dairy herds and in helping the small farmer to do without a bull. I represent a large and beautiful dale in Yorkshire. In that dale we have a very large number of small farmers. I want to see the Bill benefiting that dale within the immediate and visible future.
For this reason I want to hear something more definite than we have yet heard from the Minister, of his intentions in the setting up of these centres. I want to know whether he intends to leave the entire planning of the operation to the Milk Marketing Board. If so I shall not complain, but I know what action I shall advise my constituents to take, to see that their purposes are served. On the other hand, it may be that he or his Department intend to plan where the centres are to be. In that case, we can

apply ourselves, in the normal Parliamentary procedure, to seeing that the interests of our constituents are met.
I would point out other practical dangers which may arise in the administration of this Bill. The hon. Member for Eddisbury (Sir J. Barlow) mentioned one point about a certain disease, trichonomiasis, and I want to know whether it is a fact that artificial insemination is a way of reducing that disease. I do not know and I should like to be informed upon the matter. Does the actual sperm which is transferred carry the disease with it? We ought to have information on that point, so that, apart from testing the bulls for other diseases, they might be tested frequently in order to see that they have not this particular disease. The other danger is with regard to proven bulls. I think the Minister is aware that we are very short of them. If one sets out to buy a proven bull it is almost impossible to do so. If he goes ahead with this scheme, he will find that there will not be enough of those bulls to go round and that a large number of second class bulls will be used. I would ask what estimate the Ministry have of the number of those bulls which will be required in each successive year, according to the plans of the Minister and those of the Milk Marketing Board? What steps does the Minister intend to take, if there is likely to be a shortage, to bring the number up to requirements?
A third danger is that of cross breeding. Let it be clearly recognised by all concerned that artificial insemination is the direct road to the most widespread cross breeding that the country has ever seen. There is nothing to prevent a farmer who has a shorthorn, wishing to have the service of a Friesian bull, or a farmer with Friesian cattle the service of an Ayrshire bull. Unless we are careful we shall see cross breeding on a scale such as this country has never known. I was interested in the point made by the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), though I disagreed with his conclusions. He said that we should try to line breed within a region. That is a very good idea but the practical difficulties are enormous. It would mean that, for each region, the committee, or whatever body will run artificial insemination centres, would have to make sure first that all its own bulls in succession


from year to year carried on the same blood lines, and secondly that cattle were not brought in from outside, and crossed with this line. Therefore I say it is impracticable to do as he suggests.
The fourth danger is that of increasing some of the breeds which we know to be, or think to be, not so desirable. I admit that I have a prejudice against imported breeds. I feel it is of very great importance that the country should not be swept away by the present fashion to go for nothing but huge supplies of milk. There is one breed in particular, which has shown itself to be of doubtful advantage, and that is the Friesian breed, in that it has a history of very low butter fat. I should not like to see that lowering of butter fat content, brought into the Shorthorn areas of the country.
The fifth danger is the elimination of dual purpose cattle. The Ministry of Agriculture are accused, and in my opinion very rightly accused, of wishing to specialise. Some of their officers have a one-purpose cattle complex, and to try to push that complex wherever their influence may extend is a very dangerous thing. We want to see cattle which, when they are sold at the end of their life, have a good carcase, cattle which will breed good carcases in the unwanted heifers. To use a phrase of that eminent agriculturalist, Professor Engledow "the inherent agricultural characteristics of this country" demand a dual purpose type of cattle. Artificial insemination will put all the emphasis upon milk, and unless the leaders who take charge, try to direct the operations of these committees we shall see the milk strain becoming more and more apparent and the carcase qualities of the beasts disappearing altogether.

Mr. Paget: With regard to the Shorthorns, that certainly is not so. So far, the Shorthorn bulls which have been selected for artificial insemination have been selected because they do have these dual characteristics.

Mr. York: I would agree with the hon. Gentleman so far as my experience goes. I have only seen one centre, at Cambridge, and there they had two very likely bulls, both of which have real dual purpose characteristics.

Mr. Paget: That is the policy of the Society.

Mr. York: It is the policy of the Committee, not of the Society, which matters.

Mr. Paget: It is the policy of the Shorthorn Society with regard to artificial insemination bulls.

Mr. York: The difficulty is that the Shorthorn Society has no say in the running of these centres. Though it is arguable that they should have, they will not have in fact under this Bill, because the Milk Marketing Board will run the centres. The result will be that a committee will be formed of local people. With a bit of luck shorthorn breeders may be on the committees, and will be able to look after the point I have mentioned.
The last danger is in regard to the smaller breeds. We have, in this country, three or four superlative small breeds—Jersey, Guernsey, Redpoll, and Lincoln Red—all of them first class in their own particular type. We know that the centres will, as a general rule, have Friesian, Shorthorn and possibly Ayrshire bulls, but whether there will be one of the smaller breeds is extremely doubtful. The smaller breeds will not be selected, first of all because they are very scattered, and secondly because the majority of them do not really setout for a 2,000 gallon yield. They go for a herd average of, say, 800 or 900, and try to make a good constitution. Above all, they go for quality in the animals and the milk. It is my submission that we do not require large numbers of 2,000 gallon cows. From my own experience they very rarely breed true. It should not be the aim to try to breed 2,000 gallon cows throughout the country. What we do require is to up-grade all the cattle in the country so that in, say, five years' time, herd averages may rise to 700, and in another five years to 800, and with that rise in quantity we want to see an equal rise in constitution.
It may be said that the smaller breeds can obtain their semen by post. I have not a great deal of experience of that, but the experience I have goes to show that this is a most unsatisfactory way of carrying out artificial insemination. Perhaps now and again there may be a run of luck, but generally speaking it is a very unsatisfactory way which will lead to many disappointments amongst the


smaller breeders. I have, therefore, two concrete suggestions on points which I would like the Ministry to watch in the administration of this Measure. The first is that they should see to it that there is a bull of the smaller breeds in those areas where there is the greatest concentration of herds, and the second is that in regional centres—perhaps amongst a group of centres—there should be as far as possible a total range of bulls of all the breeds of which there are herds in that region.
I have one or two further direct questions to put before I sit down. I have asked the Minister to tell us his intentions in regard to the organisation of the centres. I want to know also the areas to be covered by each station. I want to know how the centres are to be run, and whether the Ministry itself will operate any centre or not. I also want to know whether the Ministry itself will conduct research into the various aspects of artificial insemination. I have already mentioned the estimate of the proven bulls which I require. I do not think that this Measure is as easy and certain of success as would appear on paper. I have issued my caution, and I hope that not only breeders and farmers but the Minister of Agriculture will heed my warning before we do any irreparable damage to the cattle of this country.

5.22 p.m.

Mr. Collins: In rising to take part in this Debate somewhat late in the day, I desire to join in the chorus of welcome which has been accorded to this Bill, although that welcome has thinned out rather among the later speakers. In particular, I would express the hope that this Measure is not regarded as a small one. It may be a little Bill, but I think it can, and should, have very considerable results. Quite obviously, it must be of very considerable benefit to the small farmer, but if, as the hon. and gallant Member for Ludlow (Lieut.-Colonel Corbett) suggested, it should be confined within small limits, then in my view it is doomed to failure. Some of the other suggestions which were made by various speakers were, to my mind, made because of inadequate examination of the proposals of the Bill. A number of questions have been addressed to the Minister which are already made clear and are implicit in the provisions of the Bill. A good deal has been said about

the dangers of this system of artificial insemination. The hon. Member for Rossendale (Mr. Walker), quite obviously, was unaware that this system has already been tried to a considerable extent, and indeed with considerable success, in Russia and the United States of America. There has been a considerable measure of success in this country also.
Reference was made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cirencester (Mr. W. S. Morrison) to the effect of modern conditions, on certain breeds of dogs. In my view, in that case the breeder achieved certain show points which he wanted, and, in achieving that objective, other things happened to the detriment of the breed. It was said, too, by my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) that the breeders of race horses, when mating, say, a Derby winner with an Oaks winner, did not know what they were doing, or had very little idea. I feel quite certain that most owners of eight cows and a scrub bull know far less, and this Bill will be a means of assisting them very considerably.
The hon. Member for Ripon (Mr. York) made some reference to the various centres. We already know that the two main centres are at Reading and Cambridge, but there are other private centres already functioning such as are intended under the Bill, and one of those is at Ilminster. It will be interesting to hon. Members to know of the provisions made at that centre to ensure that the dangers of which hon. Members have expressed their fears do not arise. After all, the Minister drafts a Bill and creates, in effect, the framework, but it is for the industry to see that the thing works, and if the Minister were to include too large a number of Regulations farmers would feel far too cabined and confined in the matter. At Ilminster the committee resolutely refused to allow cross-breeding. When farmers agree to have their cows served by artificial insemination; they are asked to put down in writing their breeding plans, and, of course, they are given advice and help in so doing. They are not allowed to alter those plans, but must adhere to them, and if they wish to change or to cross-breed they must get the approval of the war agricultural committee under the "Livestock Im-


provement Scheme." To my mind that is a very considerable, and, I would indeed say, sufficient safeguard, because after all farmers have a good deal of commonsense, and if they receive advice, if the dangers are pointed out to them, and if, above all, they tabulate a real breeding scheme and have to adhere to it, quite obviously it must be far more successful that the present ordinary methods, which are very frequently haphazard. There is no difference in essence between cows served by artificial insemination and those served in the ordinary way. There is simply no difference, there cannot be, and, therefore, many of the imagined dangers do not exist.

Mr. York: The hon. Member said categorically that there was absolutely no difference between normal methods of reproduction and those used in artificial insemination. Can he prove it?

Mr. Collins: I think my exact words were that there was no difference in essence—in other words, no difference in conception by artificial and natural means. Many of the speeches that we have listened to would lead one to believe that there was some essential difference. The only difference is the obvious one.
Another very important point that has been mentioned is the advantages which are likely to accrue in the fight against disease. The general public is very much interested in this matter. People are interested in increased milk production, and since it is unlikely that there will be any considerable increase in the labour force available to agriculture for a long time, this method is the one that is most likely to permit of an early increase in milk production, as it will enable farmers with a low average gallonage to increase their average. Many people fail to understand why strict milk rationing is necessary. They are perhaps unaware that approximately half of our milk goes to one-quarter of the population, the priority consumers, and that the other three-quarters of the population are left with the other half of our milk production. It is interesting to note this important change in the system of priority that has taken place during the war and which is generally approved. The general public is very keenly concerned about the question

of animal diseases, and I suggest that artificial insemination can prove very helpful in this matter. For instance, in respect to contagious abortion, which is a very big deterrent to milk production, the Ilminster centre made an experiment with 21 sterile cows. After treatment by the iodine irrigation method, the 21 sterile cows were treated with artificial insemination, and 18 of them were got in calf. That is an extraordinary tribute to this system. I would also point out that there will be a considerable saving in keep as the result of the reduction in the number of bulls.
There are one or two suggestions I wish to make for the consideration of the Minister. It is most important that the Central Advisory Committee should get down to the job of planning the centres according to geographical factors and cow density. They should take out the map and decide where the centres are to be on the basis of geographical factors and the number of cows in the areas. I do not mean that they should proceed immediately to the erection of these centres, but that they should decide that the centres will be put up in certain places. They should avoid over-concentration in certain areas, such as the places where there are Milk Marketing Boards. It is likely that there will be a tendency for centres to be set up in certain areas where they may be unnecessarily competitive, whereas if they are planned geographically they will be accessible to all, and we shall get over the difficulty which has been mentioned by several hon. Members.
I suggest that there should be comparisons between the results obtained at the centres at Reading and Cambridge and the centres elsewhere, and a general pooling of all information and ideas. It is necessary that the results should be published as widely as possible, since obviously, both in the House and outside, there exists a good deal of prejudice against this idea which, I think, is largely the result of insufficient knowledge. For example, there are farmers who, although they are convinced of results in their own area and in Russia and the United States, still think they would rather wait another 10 years and see whether any freaks develop. I do not know whether they feel that the lack of parental influence is going to lead to a lot of wayward daughters or unruly sons, but


there is a feeling that it would be as well to wait for another 10 years. If that feeling prevails, the success of this Measure and its help to agriculture will be very small indeed. I hope the Minister will also consider ways and means of raising standards for the registration of ordinary bulls. We must retain only the best animals, and I feel that many which are now registered ought not to be used for breeding purposes. The Bill also covers other livestock, and extends to horses and pigs. It certainly offers a means of speedily increasing the number of pigs and a means of assisting in the breeding of a standard type, or standard types, of pigs in order to build up a bacon industry, which is very badly needed in this country, and which can be successfully achieved only if we breed a suitable type of pig. In that matter the Bill can help. It is a small Bill which, if properly used, can have very far-reaching results, and I welcome it as a valuable contribution to an increase and an improvement in the food production of this country.

5.37 P.m.

Colonel Ponsonby: I feel that something ought to be said in this Debate about an industry which is brought into Clause 1 of the Bill quite incidentally, namely, bee-keeping. Very little is known about the bee industry, although many people keep bees. Perhaps I may be allowed to speak for the industry, because for several years, at the request of the late Minister of Agriculture, I have been a member of the Bee Diseases Advisory Committee. This Committee is directing its efforts mainly to eradicating disease in bees—such as foul brood and acarine disease, but in addition it does what it can to advise the bee-keepers of the country. It is hardly necessary for me to point out the merits of bee-keeping from the point of view of honey production and the improvement of orchards. I think this subject was referred to in the last Parliament by my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. E. P. Smith). A great deal has been done, and a great many improvements have been made, but the Committee has always felt that at some time or another it will be absolutely essential to have registration of bee-keepers, because two or three scrub hives which are diseased may undo all the good that the Bee Diseases Advisory Com-

mittee does in trying to improve stocks and keep them clean. 
The Committee is advised almost entirely by Professor Butler of Rothamsted, and I wish to pay a great tribute to the work done by him and those who work with him. His fame is not restricted to this country. When I was in Moscow recently, I met the professor of bee-keeping of the U.S.S.R., and he was full of praise for the work done by Professor Butler and Rothamsted. But all this work requires money. I am, therefore, very glad that the Minister has included bee-keeping in this Bill. When I was at Rothamsted, I saw the miserable premises in which this research is being done, and it was impressed upon me how very necessary it is to improve the premises there. It may be advisable to make other centres, and certainly to increase the staff. I am grateful to the Minister for having included bee-keeping under the Bill, and I am certain that what is proposed, if it is done fairly lavishly, will be for the good of the industry and of the community in general.

5.40 p.m.

Mr. Kenyon: I wish to make one or two practical points. I share the fear of the hon. Member for Ripon (Mr. York) that the smaller breeds may be kept out. We have in this country a variety of land and climate to which certain breeds are peculiar, and I feel that there may be a danger of milk producers concentrating upon a heavy milking breed, such as the Friesians. Therefore, I hope that in the artificial insemination centres there will be bulls of all the breeds for which this country is noted, as well as those which have been imported.
Like some other hon. Members, I feel that unless the charge to the farmers is made much lower, it will act as a deterrent. At the present time charges are not heavy, but there is a large number of milk producers who run what arc known as "flying herds." The flying herd is a very great danger, because there is no continuity of breeding policy in that herd. A cow is simply brought into the herd, milked out, and then sent back into the market. The man with a flying herd does not care what kind of a bull he gets; all that he desires to get, and does get in the main, is a cheap bull. Unless the fee for artificial insemination is lowered, the man with the flying herd will not use it, and


will not take advantage of the scheme. Therefore, the flying herds will not be improved. It must be remembered that the calves from these flying herds enter the market just like any other calves. They are picked up by rearers, who very often judge them on the outward signs, the physique of the calf, its good colour, or its good shape. They know nothing whatever about its breeding or about its dam's production. I feel that unless the charges for artificial insemination are decreased, the large farmers who run flying herds will take no notice of it.
There is another thing that must be followed up. When you have calves coming from artificially inseminated cows, and you have the advantage of good bulls, there ought to be some scheme whereby the calf could be followed to the rearing farmer. Otherwise its dam or its sire will not be known. One of the advantages of this scheme will be completely lost unless the history of the calf can be followed. The Ministry would be well advised to see that some calf scheme is set up following upon the extension of artificial insemination. There is another point that we ought to watch. I feel that many of these schemes will fail unless there is a greater extension of milk recording. Milk recording is necessary, because, no matter how good a bull you get, in the finest herds you have always some cows that are failures. It is necessary, in introducing good bulls into any herd, to be able to eliminate the cows that will always be failures, otherwise we shall continue to have the old difficulties. I put forward these suggestions to the Minister, and I welcome this scheme. There are great possibilities in it, but it needs to be followed up, especially in regard to the calves and in eliminating not only the bad bulls, but also the bad breeding dams.

5.47 p.m.

Mr. Hurd: The hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Kenyon) has put forward some valuable suggestions and with particular force, because he comes from an area where there is great scope for the benefits which artificial insemination can bring. I do not want to add to the good advice and the warnings to the Minister on the Bill, but there is one point I want to make. We are a long way behind other countries in the

use being made of artificial insemination for cattle improvement. We are behind America, which I had an opportunity of seeing last autumn, behind Russia, and certainly a long way behind Denmark. This Bill makes some financial provision for the Government to cover the Milk Marketing Board and other producer-controlled organisations which set up artificial insemination centres against loss. That is desirable. How many of these centres will be set up in the next year, and indeed, over the period of the guarantee, and at what cost does the Minister expect these centres to be erected? I have heard that the Milk Marketing Board, which has grown up to have rather grand ideas about buildings, is proposing to select first-class building sites, with electricity and water supplies and sewerage facilities, on the outskirts of towns, for the erection of buildings which are to house these artificial insemination centres, and some of them will cost £5,000, £6,000, and indeed, up to £12,000. If the Milk Marketing Board and other producer-controlled organisations are being encouraged by the Government to go in for grandiose building schemes in connection with insemination centres, we shall not get the full benefits of this Bill, because the money will not go far enough.
I had the opportunity yesterday of talking to a Warwickshire fanner, Mr. Clyde Higgs, who has just returned from Denmark. He told me that there artificial insemination has gone ahead fast in the war years and that today there are 60,000 members of the farmers'associations which run artificial insemination and that the 400,000th cow has now been inseminated. These farmers in Denmark are well satisfied with the results they are getting. They have arranged the job for themselves very economically. They are not putting up the elaborate buildings which are apparently contemplated by the Milk Marketing Board, acting under the cover of the Government guarantee. I would like an assurance from the Minister that, in these days, when building labour is scarce and we want to see every possible building operative engaged in putting up houses for human beings, that the Government will not allow extravagance in putting up palaces for bulls, when they can be housed much more simply. I hope that we shall follow the example of Den-


mark and of America and get ahead fast with the provision of a nation-wide service of artificial insemination of cattle, but we must not unduly waste our precious building labour and materials when we want them so urgently for the housing of human beings.

5.51 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture (Mr. Collick): The Debate has confirmed our anticipations that there is no serious opposition in any quarter of the House to the proposals of this Bill and, therefore, I think it will suit the general convenience if I reply very briefly to some of the more relevant points that have been made in the discussion and to some of the questions that were raised. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cirencester (Mr. W. S. Morrison), who followed the Minister in this Debate, made the point that he is a little sceptical as to the balance of good or evil in the processes of artificial insemination, and it was obvious during the Debate that there were other speakers who, to some extent, shared that view. But it is worth observing that, despite that element of doubt, every one of the speakers was whole heartedly in support of the provisions of the Bill.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: My point was not that I cast doubt on the merits of the Bill itself or the process which it legalises, but I ventured to doubt whether, on the whole, some of the breeding activities of dogs did dogs any good.

Mr. Collick: I appreciate the point which the right hon. Gentleman made, but I am sure he will readily appreciate, too, that the major purpose of the Bill is not necessarily for show purposes of cattle but is essentially much more designed for utilitarian purposes. I can well follow the line of his reasoning and I am not at all unsympathetic to what I gather to be his main point, which was that, in the whole of the development of the practice, a very close observation should be kept upon what developed from it and that Government policy should be guided from time to time in the light of accumulated knowledge derived from the experiments going on and its practices. I suppose that the whole House would agree that there may be reactions to what, after all, is a relatively new process.
When on entering upon my present office my attention was first drawn to this Bill I had certain opinions and I have exercised my own critical faculties in giving consideration to it. I have had consultations with the Minister's advisers about the whole matter. I can whole heartedly assure the House that the Government will keep the very closest watch on developments. There will be intensive research and we shall be guided, obviously, by what develops from those researches. The right hon. and learned Gentleman also mentioned that he might have some suggestions to make on the Committee stage of the Bill, but he gave us no indication what precisely was in his mind, but, naturally, if a case is made out in Committee in this or that direction the Government will give consideration to it in the usual way.
We have listened to some particularly good maiden speeches on what I rather presumed was not a most easy subject upon which maiden speeches could be delivered, and great credit goes to the hon. Gentlemen on either side of the House who have contributed to our discussion. I thought that my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), recognising in advance that it was undesirable to lecture the House, proceeded to get very near to that stage—he certainly gave us the benefit of his advice in the science of genetics, and we proceeded from that science to talk about green peas. The House listened with the keenest possible interest to his discourse on that matter, and I shall welcome the contributions he may make in this House from time to time on subjects of this character. The hon. Member for Abingdon (Sir R. Glyn) raised the point as to the radius in which the centres presently operate, and the real answer to that is, that there is no arbitrary line about this matter. At the moment it has been found economical and desirable to limit the radius to 15 or 20 miles but with the development of stations that will go on when this Bill is passed, the Ministry has something like an open mind on the matter. If a case can be made out for an extension of the radius, there is no reason, as far as I know, why that should not be reasonably considered. It has been, as I understand it, rather a matter of what is sensible economy in the radius covered and that is the real reason why the radius is what it is.

Sir R. Glyn: I understood that the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) mentioned that the Cambridge centre went as far a field as Cumberland. I live 20 miles from Shinfield but was informed that we should be out of it and that nothing could be done.

Mr. Collick: I would like to look into that matter more closely, but as I understand there is no service of this kind over long distances like that. It may well be there might be some exceptional case for experimental research purposes in which that was done, but, by and large, it is not the practice to give the service over long distances.

Mr. Paget: It was an exceptional case, and it was in regard to Mr. Jackson's herd in Cumberland that they wanted to breed a special bull.

Lieut.-Colonel Dower: As my constituency has been mentioned, may I express the hope that this service will not be discontinued?

Mr. Collick: Be that as it may, it confirms the point I made, that, generally speaking, there is some justification for the radius as at present. Another point which the hon. Gentleman made was as to whether there could not be some development of the veterinary service under the scheme for the small men. I am certain that everybody in this House who is interested in agriculture and kindred industries, is only too familiar with the general shortage of veterinary surgeons and I do not want to go too far, but I think I can say that the Minister is having consultations with the parties properly concerned in that matter, and is trying to find some way in which the veterinary services can be developed in the country. I think I know his mind sufficient for me to say that if, in the course of the development of the centres, it becomes possible to include any facilities in that direction, having regard to the importance of animal health, he would obviously only be too willing to give the most reasonable and sympathetic consideration to it.
I perhaps ought to say something in regard to the point made by the hon. Member for Northampton about cross-breeding, although I do not want to enter at all into the technicalities, and this applies to several other points which hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the

House have made. The Minister in this matter has the services of a most competent advisory committee, the members of which are of the highest standing. They are, I think, certainly the most competent body to advise the Minister on this subject. Several hon. Members have made points on this question of breeding, cross-breeding and in-breeding, and, here again, I would say that the Minister will pay the closest attention to any recommendations or advice which comes from his expert Advisory Committee.
The hon. and gallant Member for Ludlow (Lieut.-Colonel Corbett) asked us to see that this does not become a profit-making service. I thought it most delightful, if I may say so, to hear an hon. Member on the opposite Benches talk like that, and I should say at once that the Government are naturally concerned to see that this does not become a profit making service. As a matter of fact, one of the aims of the Bill is to see that it does not become a matter of commercial exploitation. That is why the producer-controlled societies are specially provided for in the terms of the Bill, and I can assure the hon, and gallant Member that the Government will keep a very close eye on the cost of the service. It is the fact, at the moment, that the cost in the stations at present operating runs from 22s. to 25s., and one, I think, is £1.Judging by what the hon. Member below the Gangway said about the cost of maintenance of a scrub bull for a year, I think it would be possible to make out quite a good case that the present basis of the cost of the service is very satisfactory, having regard to the fact that the service rendered is from the highest quality bull.
Several other hon. Members made the point that they hoped that the provisions of this Bill would be of great help to the small farmer. I wholeheartedly endorse that suggestion and I would say that one of the real objects of this Bill is to give special assistance to the small farmer. It is one of the main aims which runs right through the Bill, because it is recognised that the present arrangement is not at all satisfactory. The smaller type of farmer at present, is unable to afford the capital cost which a good bull involves, and, therefore, this arrangement of artificial insemination centres will enable him to have the best possible service.
The bon. Member for Rossendale (Mr. Walker) treated the House to a very entertaining and interesting speech, and he quoted the opinion of an eminent gentleman that it was awful that this ghoulish practice should be allowed to continue, that many cattle have no sex now and spoke of the terrible things that would develop if this continued. All I would say is that, if many of the cattle have no sex now, it certainly is not due to artificial insemination. I do want to say that one has become fairly used, in dealing with experts, to finding that the advice of one sometimes cancels out the advice of another. It is the job of experts to give advice, and the job of lay men to determine whether that advice is generally sound or otherwise.
I understand that there may be certain people who hold the contrary view and are unfavourable to the aims of this Bill, but I think it can be said, by and large, that there are other countries going ahead in this matter. Science, in its diverse forms, goes on, whether it is genetics or any other form of science, and the one thing which we would not wish would be for this country to be left behind in the development of this practice. One of the aims of this Bill is to ensure that we are not left behind, as, I am afraid, this country has been left behind in many instances which we could quote. It is because the Government are satisfied that this is a matter which should be developed that this Bill has been introduced.
The hon. Member for North Cumberland (Mr. W. Roberts) asked if the Government could give any indication of its policy in relation to the number of centres that will be developed. Here, again, as I know the hon. Member will appreciate, we must be guided by the advice of competent people. The main consideration which determines the opening and development of these centres is, first, the cow population in the area, and the extent to which it can be established that, for that cow population, bearing in mind the number of small herds and the like, it is desirable to have a centre more speedily than in another place; also there is the question of the incidence of disease. One hon. Member got himself tied up, and I shall probably do the same, with the pronunciation of this word trichonomiasis. On the question of that disease, I can say that there is evidence

that artificial insemination has lessened its incidence. One of the centres which has been opened in the North Wales area has lessened very considerably the incidence of that disease, and that gives special point to the remarks of an hon. Member opposite on the relative value of good and evil. We shall be guided by experience in this matter. I also want to tell the hon. Member, who referred to an orderly plan, that this makes a great appeal to this Government. An orderly plan in this matter is no less important than in the general economic policy of the Government, and I can assure him that we shall have an orderly plan.

Mr. Wilfrid Roberts: Will the Minister give a little more specific information of what that plan is? Does he propose to open 100 centres, 50 or 25, in the next two years?

Mr. Collick: The answer is—and I am sure the hon. Member will readily appreciate it—that we are not wholly the masters in this matter. Building is the chief factor, but there is a plan, and there are two orders of priority—first and second—listed in relative importance, as determined by the Advisory Committee. I think that, when building labour becomes available, together with the other ancillary people whose labour is necessary, the hon. Member can rest assured that that plan will be developed in an orderly way.

Mr. York: Can we have any more details of how many centres?

Mr. Collick: I did not want to bother the House with unnecessary details.

Mr. York: We want them.

Mr. Collick: I can see the hon. Gentleman obviously desires them and I will try to be helpful to him. I will give an indication of those on the first priority list, though I hope we shall not have any competition between hon. Members staking their claims. Cheshire is on the first priority, obviously on account of its dairy herds, and Durham, Devon, Shropshire, East Suffolk, Wiltshire, Yorkshire and Carmarthenshire. Those are on the first list.

Mr. Snadden: Can the Minister say anything about Scotland?

Mr. Collick: I am in the closest touch with my colleague in the Scottish Office, and I am sure that the Under-Secretary for Scotland will be only too pleased to give the hon. Member information on that. The hon. Member for Ripon (Mr. York) also asked about the availability of proven bulls. We are not anticipating any difficulty in getting bulls of the requisite quality to stock the centres, and I am quite sure that we shall have stock of the highest quality for meeting that demand. The hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Hurd) made reference to the fact that the policy of the Milk Marketing Board may be to have rather elaborate premises. He knows, no less well than any hon. Member of the House, that the Minister, by a process of Rules under which these centres are managed, has certain ways in which he can have supervision in that regard. I am quite sure that this Government, which is anxious to get houses built for ordinary people, will be quite unwilling to have palaces built for bulls. I think the hon. Member need have no fears that the Minister will exercise his powers in that respect.

Mr. Hurd: Will the Minister review some schemes already in an advanced state of preparation, because it does appear that they are perhaps on rather extravagant lines?

Mr. Collick: I can assure the hon. Member that we are in consultation with the Milk Marketing Board and that we aim to keep down prices, because, obviously, they will affect the price of the service. I would conclude by saying that I commend this Bill to the House. We are satisfied that it will be of service to the farming industry, and that it will be of particular service to the owners of small herds, and we shall watch the whole development with the closest attention.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

Orders of the Day — AGRICULTURE (ARTIFICIAL INSEMINATION) [MONEY]

Considered in Committee, under Standing Order No. 69.

[Mr. HUBERT BEAUMONT in the Chair]

Resolved:

"That for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to enable the Minister of

Agriculture and Fisheries and the Secretary of State to make contributions and establish centres for the purposes of research as to the practice of artificial insemination of livestock, to provide for the payment of grants out of moneys provided by Parliament in respect of initial losses incurred in the operation of certain centres for the artificial insemination of cattle, and for purposes connected therewith, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament—

(1) of any expenses incurred in accordance with the provisions of the said Act by the said Minister and the Secretary of State, respectively—
(a) in contributing towards approved expenditure incurred in the conduct of research or experiment in matters affecting the practice of artificial insemination of livestock, including poultry and. bees;
(b) in establishing and operating, for the purposes of such research and experiment, centres providing services of artificial insemination for any such livestock,
to such amount as may be sanctioned by the Treasury;
(2) of any sums required for the payment in accordance with the provisions of the said Act of grants in respect of losses incurred, during a period beginning on or after 1st January, 1945, and ending not later than 31st March, 1951, in the operation of centres providing services of artificial insemination for cattle in Great Britain, being centres owned and controlled by Milk Marketing Boards or other organisations carrying on business for the mutual benefit of breeders or owners of cattle;

and the payment into the Exchequer of any sums received by the said Minister or the Secretary of State which are required by the said Act to be so paid."—(King's Recommendation signified).—[Mr. Collick.]

Resolution to be reported Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — STATUTORY ORDERS (SPECIAL PROCEDURE) BILL

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

CLAUSE 3.—(Petitions.)

6.15 p.m.

The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Arthur Greenwood): I beg to move, in page 2, line 42, leave out "Provided that if," and insert "(4) Where."
This Amendment and the next two Amendments stand together, and are designed to clarify the Bill on a point which was raised by the hon. Gentleman the Member for The High Peak (Mr. Molson), who was supported by the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Lennox-Boyd) when we met in Standing Committee. They suggested that the


effect of the proviso to Clause 3 (3) as it stands, would be that the two chairmen, who will be in authority in these matters, might, without reference to the petitioner, amend a petition by striking out those parts of it which amounted in substance to a Prayer against the Order generally, and so leave the petitioner without even the very limited rights which the Bill confers upon petitioners who desire to contest the whole Order in Committee.
I may say that I was not one of the authors of this Bill but I think I can say that that was never intended when the Bill was originally introduced. The object of the proviso was merely to enable a petitioner to proceed with as much of his petition as he could, by amendment, in a case where the chairman would otherwise be obliged to certify the whole petition as one of general objection—in which case I think an injustice would have been done to the petitioner. These Amendments are designed to make the intention of the Bill quite clear in this matter, and I hope they will meet with the approval of the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Molson: I should like to express my gratitude to the Lord Privy Seal for having moved this Amendment. It seemed to us, when we raised this matter on the Committee stage, that the Bill was, at best, ambiguous, and that it might very well result in a very serious injustice to some petitioner. I think that the words which the right hon. Gentleman has moved will both make the Bill quite plain and will also insure adequate justice being done to the petitioner.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 2, line 45, leave out "either certify the petition," and insert:
if they certify that the petition is proper to be received, certify it.

In line 46, leave out "or," and insert:
Provided that if the petitioner satisfies the Chairmen that some only of the amendments involved would constitute a negative of the main purpose of the order, the Chairmen may.

In line 46, leave out "therefrom."—[Mr. Greenwood.]

CLAUSE 6.—(Operation of orders.)

Mr. Molson: Would it be for the convenience of the House if the Amendments standing in my name were all taken to-

gether, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, since they all deal with the same point?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Hubert Beaumont): If the House agrees, that would be quite satisfactory.

Mr. Molson: I beg to move, in page 4, line 40, leave out from "committee," to end of line 41
In the Committee stage my hon. Friends and I moved an Amendment because the Bill, as drafted, made this rather strange provision, that if a statutory Order had been referred to a Joint Committee of both Houses, and the Joint Commitee had disapproved of the Order and recommended that it be annulled, then if the Government incorporated the statutory Order in a Bill and proceeded to pass it through Parliament as a Bill, the Bill could be deemed to have passed a Committee of the House—whereas, in point of fact, it had failed to pass that Committee. There are, obviously, in this case two conditions which might arise: either in the case of this statutory Order there might only have been a petition of general objection, or there might have been a petition of general objection and also a petition of amendment. In our view it was desirable that if the Government, in the exercise of their right to incorporate the statutory Order in the form of a Bill, used their majority in the House of Commons in order to carry that statutory Order through in the form of an Act, at any rate it should be subjected to the scrutiny of a Committee of the House.
The Amendments in my name are directed to the case where the Joint Committee of both Houses has considered a petition of general objection and where there has been, in the first place only, a petition of general objection and, in the second place, where there has also been a petition of amendment. If there are no petitions for amendment, the question which Parliament has to determine is whether the Order which the Minister had laid before Parliament—and which had been disapproved by the Joint Committee and subsequently embodied in a Bill—should or should not be annulled, and that obviously is a matter to be determined upon Second Reading. If, however, in addition to that, there are outstanding before Parliament petitions for amendment, it is appropriate that even if Parliament has decided that the general prin-


ciples of the statutory Order shall be approved and the statutory Order shall go forward, that the Order itself shall go to a Joint Committee which will be the same Joint Committee as was set up to consider the general principles of the Order, and which will sit upstairs in a forensic atmosphere, and hear the case for and against the Order stated by Parliamentary Counsel. Paragraph (a)in the new Subsection (5) which it is proposed to insert provides that in such a case the Bill, as soon as the Government have obtained in the first House a Second Reading decision overruling the Joint Committee on the question of annulment, shall go back to the Joint Committee for consideration of the petitions for amendment. When the Joint Committee has considered those petitions for amendment, the Bill will be reported in the House in which it has been introduced.
The intention of this Amendment is that there shall be a Report stage, and that when the matter has come back to the House after being considered by the Joint Committee upstairs, the House shall have an opportunity on Report stage of effecting any Amendments in the Bill which, after due consideration, appear to be desirable. When the Bill has passed the first House, it will pass to the second House, but in that House it will already have had a Committee stage. The effect of having a Joint Committee—and that is the chief economy in time which will be effected by this Bill—will be that instead of there being Committee stages in both Houses, there will be a Joint Committee which will be the Committee stage in the first and in the second House, and so, when it proceeds to the second House, it will there again begin at the Report stage. The new Subsection (5) which I am moving should be inserted in Clause 6, while it ensures that there is a Committee stage, if there are petitions for amendment to be considered in Committee, is entirely consistent with the main purpose of the Bill. This Amendment is not in any way a wrecking Amendment, but is intended to give general effect to the purpose of the Bill.

6.30 p.m.

The first House probably will have its opportunity of debating the general question whether the Bill embodying the Order shall proceed at all on Second

Reading, and it will have on the Report stage, an opportunity of making any consequential Amendments which may be necessitated by Amendments at the Joint Committee stage. The second House will, in its turn, have an opportunity at Report stage of making Amendments, and it will have its own opportunity of deciding that the Bill shall not pass at all if it chooses to reject the Bill at the Third Reading stage. This is a carefully drafted Amendment which is the result of certain discussions which have taken place between the Government and my hon. Friends and myself since the Committee stage. I have also handed in a manuscript Amendment adding the word "Standing" before the word, "Committee, "in order to make it quite plain that the purpose of the Amendment is that there shall be a Report stage in both Houses, after the Joint Committee has considered the Bill.

Mr. Charles Williams: I beg to second the Amendment.
It seems to me that this Amendment, as drafted, will give additional chances of overcoming the difficulties, and I believe that is the real object of all parties in the House—to make legislation go smoothly and easily. I notice that the Lord Privy Seal is in a very mellow mood tonight and I have no doubt the Amendment will be accepted by the Government.

Mr. Greenwood: I thank the hon. Gentleman for the kind words he has used about me. When the first of these Amendments—and they all hang together—came before us in Standing Committee upstairs, I felt bound at that stage to oppose my hon. Friend the Member for The High Peak (Mr. Molson), but I did undertake to reconsider the matter between Committee stage and our present Report stage. The first Amendment, by itself, would really have emasculated the Bill, but with the other Amendments I think its purpose can be properly achieved. I think the Amendments have been very skilfully drafted and I shall be very glad to accept them and also my hon. Friend's manuscript Amendment

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made:

In page 4, line 40, leave out from "Committee" to end of line 41.

In line 46, after "a" insert "Standing."

In page 4, line 47, leave out from "and" to "as," on page 5, line 1.

In page 5, line 4, at end, insert:

"(5) A Bill presented for the purposes of Subsection (3) of this Section shall set out the Order as referred to the joint committee, and any such Bill shall be treated for all purposes as a public Bill, except that—
(a) where a petition for amendment of the Order certified as proper to be received was not dealt with by the joint committee, the Bill shall, after being read a Second time in the House in which it is presented, be referred to that committee for the purposes of the consideration of that petition, and thereafter shall be ordered to be considered in that House as if it had been reported from a standing committee thereof; and when the Bill has been read a Third time and passed in that House, it shall be deemed to have passed through all its stages up to and including committee in the second House;
(b) where no such petition has been so certified, the Bill shall, after its presentation, be treated as having passed all its stages up to and including committee in the House in which it is presented, and shall be ordered to be considered in that House as if it had been reported from a standing committee thereof; and when the Bill has been read a Third time and passed in that House the like proceedings shall be taken in the second House."—[Mr. Molson.]

CLAUSE 9.—(Standing Orders for the purposes of the Act.)

Amendment made: In page 7, line 12, after "Order," insert "or Bill."—[Mr. Molson.]

CLAUSE 10.—(Application to Orders extending to Scotland only.)

The Lord Advocate (Mr. G. R. Thomson): I beg to move, in page 9. line 47, at end, insert:

"(4) Section six of this Act shall have effect as if—
(i) in paragraph (a) of Subsection (5) for the words from 'certified as' to 'joint committee' there were substituted the words 'has been referred to the joint committee and has not been dealt with by them'; and
(ii) in paragraph (b) of the said Subsection for the word 'certified' there was substituted the word 'referred'."

This Amendment is in the Scottish application Clause and is consequential on the Amendments which have just been agreed to on Clause 6.

Amendment agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

6.36 p.m.

Mr. Molson: I do not think the House should part with this Bill without a few words being said on the part of those of us who have opposed it from the very beginning. We opposed it in the last Parliament when it was introduced by the Coalition Government, and we still do not think it is entirely satisfactory. The worst features have certainly been eliminated from it by the Amendment that was moved by the Lord Privy Seal and by the further Amendments which the Lord Privy Seal has been good enough to accept. I am sorry he did not accept on Committee stage a number of other Amendments, which I think would have improved the Bill without, in any way, affecting the purpose for which it is intended, which is generally to expedite the procedure under Provisional Orders.
I said on Second Reading that I accepted the objective as stated by the Lord President of the Council when he said:
The real aim should not be to resist the principle of delegated legislation, but rather to devise a Parliamentary check whereby the Government might be prevented from running away with the show."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th August, 1945; Vol. 413, c. 1048.]
Those words were exactly in line with the Explanatory Memorandum with which this Bill was provided when it was introduced. But the Bill bases its distinction between Statutory Orders which are to be considered on the Floor of the House and those which are to be considered by a Committee upstairs, upon an entirely different principle. I believe it would have been far better if the Bill had been drafted to come into line with the Explanatory Memorandum, instead of the distinction being taken of a petition of general objection and a petition for amendment. I hope that this Bill will work satisfactorily, but I am extremely doubtful whether it will. I fear that before long there will be a considerable number of local authorities desiring to petition against Orders made under the Boundary Commission Act, under the Water Act, under the Town and Country Planning Act, who will find themselves, in point of fact, deprived of the opportunity of making their petitions intelligible to Parliament in the only way in which they can be made intelligible, that is upstairs before a small Committee, with their case explained by


Parliamentary counsel, and with opportunity for plans and maps to be passed round and for careful examination of the whole matter in an entirely non-political atmosphere.
There is provision, of course, in this Bill for petitions of general objection to be referred to a Joint Committee which will sit upstairs in just that atmosphere and it, therefore, does depend entirely upon the attitude of the Government for the time being as to whether they are prepared to allow petitions of that kind to be considered by a Joint Committee. The right hon. and learned Member for West Derby (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe), who had a great deal to do with the origins of this Bill in the last Parliament, made a speech on Second Reading of the Bill in which he gave general support to it, but he did say that there was one matter in it that troubled a number of my hon. Friends.
As I say, it will require, in any case, the most careful approach by the Government, the most—not conciliatory but, on the Government's own side, watchful approach—in order to see that no opponent is put in a wrongful position, by reason of this innovation."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th October, 1945;Vol. 414, c. 1393.]
This Bill does give the Executive the power to use its majority as a bulldozer to rub out any opposition from petitioners against Statutory Orders if it wishes to do so. It is no good saying that, as long as there is the right of an hon. Member to pray against an Order, that is an effective way of enabling a petitioner or a local authority to be heard. It means that one hon. Member representing his constituency, acting at the request of his local authority, has to try to persuade a number of his Friends, who are not in the least interested in the subject, to sit late at night, in order to keep a House and listen to him stating a highly technical case, which he finds it extremely difficult to understand and still more difficult to explain, against some Statutory Order which has been made by the Minister of Health or by some other Government Department and which his own local authority or some other constituent whom he seeks to help, considers injurious to their interests.
There is the power, in this case, to refer the matter to a Joint Committee of both Houses and, quite obviously, there are

going to be many cases. This Bill was intended to deal with the Boundary Commission Act. That is an Act which enables a Commission to alter the boundaries of local authorities, to deprive even a county borough of its county borough status. It deals also with water authorities, it gives great and, I believe, in many cases, beneficial, powers of compulsory amalgamation of different water authorities. It deals also with the Town and Country Planning Act and all that is involved by the expression "an area of extensive war damage. "Statutory Orders are going to be made by Government Departments which will affect the rights of individuals and of local authorities. I do not doubt that Ministers are going to make them with the best possible intentions. They believe they are going to be in the general interests of the country as a whole, but it has always been a principle and a tradition of our Constitution, that the subject and the local authority which is injured or aggrieved by any particular act of the Executive shall have the right to come to the House of Commons. Until now every petitioner has been able to have the issue tried in a judicial atmosphere upstairs. Three or more Members of this House have sat behind a table, and have heard each side stated by Parliamentary counsel. I remember a town clerk saying to me: "I have not got an awful lot of use for your Parliamentary institutions, or for your politicians, but I can say this: I have come on a number of occasions with Private Bills to the House of Commons, and we have always had an extraordinarily fair hearing. Whether we have won or lost, we have always gone away feeling that we have had a fair hearing."
I would say to the Lord Privy Seal that he is going to get the Third Reading tonight of a Bill which will expedite procedure in getting Provisional Orders through. I am not against speeding it up; I have always been in favour of speeding it up. But I believe there are various ways in which it could have been greatly speeded up, without taking the great risks which are being taken in this Bill. For the first time, the petitioner, who puts in a petition, is not able to ensure that his petition is going to be heard in that judicial atmosphere upstairs. You, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, in your capacity as Chairman of Ways and Means, and the Lord Chairman of Com-


mittees in the House of Lords, are going to be put in an extraordinarily responsible position; and one which, I think, you will sometimes find very difficult to fill. You will be asked, when a petition comes up to you, dealing with some highly technical order, issued by some Government Department, to decide whether this is a petition of amendment, in which case it is to be dealt with by a Judicial Committee upstairs, or whether it is a petition of general objection, in which case it is to be dealt with by a Prayer on the Floor of this House. You are going to be called upon to take that decision. In many cases, you will decide that this is a petition of general objection.
It it comes on to the Floor of this House, and if the Minister responsible for it—in many cases it will be the Minister of Health; in some cases it will be the Minister of Town and Country Planning—tells the Whips that he does not wish to have this matter referred to a Joint Committee of both Houses, then it will be dealt with by a Prayer; and it may be dealt with late at night. The House will have had a long day upon important, perhaps international affairs, and then, late at night, a representative of a local authority will get up and move a Prayer, when everybody will be anxious to go home to bed. I would ask the Lord Privy Seal to give an undertaking now that this Government, at any rate—and if they set an example, perhaps other Governments will follow it—will not use their majority as a "bulldozer, "in order to prevent petitioners from having a fair opportunity of having their case heard in a judicial atmosphere upstairs, even if it is going to delay matters to a certain extent.
There was another matter which I raised upstairs, and that, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, dealt with the position in which you, and the Lord Chairman of Committees in the House of Lords, will find yourselves, when you are considering these petitions. They are going to be highly technical petitions, and it was not at all plain in the Bill when introduced that when you were considering whether a petition was a petition of general objection, or a petition of amendment, you would have the right to call for evidence from the Government Department concerned, and, consequently, as one would hope, for the petitioner. It did emerge, I think, in the Committee stage upstairs, that the

Government had every intention that there should be every opportunity, at that stage, for the two Chairmen to have explained to them the significance of the Order, and the significance of the petition against the Order. The exact procedure will be dealt with, of course, in the Standing Orders, which will have to be laid before the House, as a result of this Bill. The Standing Orders are not, primarily, a matter for the Government, but, naturally, a Government which controls a majority of this House will have a good deal to do with them. Therefore, I ask the Lord Privy Seal to repeat now, on the Floor of the House, the assurance which he gave to me upstairs, in the Committee Stage, that, so far as the Government are concerned, they desire that the Standing Orders shall make ample provision for the Chairmen to have the opportunity to hear both evidence from the Government Department concerned, and also adequate evidence on behalf of the petitioner against the statutory Order.

6.54 p.m.

Mr. Charles Williams: I wish only to say a few words on this Bill. It deals with a matter which is likely to affect, not only the lives, of individuals, but also the whole situation, in the case of boundaries of local authorities, some of which may have gone on for a very long time, some of which are efficient and others inefficient. I think we all have sympathy with the Lord Privy Seal in this respect—if this Bill will save in time and cost in getting through some of the things that have to be done, then many of us will support him readily; and I hope that will be the result of the Bill. But there is another side, and I have seen a little of it. The working of these Bills which go upstairs does not take the time. That is not where the real time goes, generally. The time is taken when these Bills are going through the Government Departments, and not in the Parliamentary stages. Although you may save something in that respect, I doubt whether the saving is going to be anything like as much as some people think.
I agree with my hon. Friend who has just spoken that the really vital point, when you are dealing with such matters as a boundary question, is that, when the question has been dealt with and settled, the people can feel that their case has been really fought out in the


House of Commons. I will illustrate my point: Supposing a large borough on the edge of a county proposes to extend and to seize and run a great bit of the adjacent county, as well as the county in which it is situated. That will leave a very great deal of bad feeling unless the adjacent county and the county in which the borough is situated are quite certain that their case can be heard by Members of the House of Commons; I do not mean the whole of the Members, but a committee of Members sitting upstairs in a judicial capacity. The people concerned will go back and say, "We put our case to the committee, and it was considered with care and in detail, and the proposal has been lost. "They will say, "We hate joining in, but the case has been considered, not by a Government Department, but by elected Members of the House of Commons, sitting as judges. "It has always been one of the very big things about the House of Commons, that although we can have extraordinarily bitter party strife here—and I think I can remember once or twice taking part in it myself—that we can put that aside, and work as ordinary men together.
If the Government, as I hope they will, accept the broad lines laid down by the hon. Member who spoke just now, and do not press to have these things taken too quickly, and will allow a Joint Committee to be used, from time to time, then I believe we can achieve some acceleration of time, and that we shall not be losing very much. I would not like to say, or do anything, that would hold up the very important Measures that have been put down, because I fully realise that these changes, or some changes, have to be made in order to rebuild after the troubles of the war. But I think myself that this procedure should be used very carefully indeed, or we may lose something, which will, ultimately, not be for the good of the House, and the good of the country. We may create the feeling that we are setting up great barriers, and have ill-feeling, simply because people may think that their case has not been properly gone into. It may have been gone into properly, but the people of this country judge by what they think is right. I emphasise, once again, that I doubt if the saving of time is going to be very great. I think that it is in the Depart-

ments that saving could really be made. I hope that this Measure will be worked in the common interest, so that anything that is done may leave after it a sense of good feeling in the localities.

6.59 p.m.

Mr. A. Greenwood: I know that my Scottish friends became very impatient about artificial insemination, and I have no doubt that their impatience is growing now, because I understand there is a matter which is of very deep interest to them coming before the House, but I could not allow this Bill to pass its Third Reading without offering a few observations. In the first place I should like to express my sincere appreciation of the services of my hon. Friend the Member for The High Peak Division (Mr. Molson), who, amongst the back benchers of this House, knows more about it than all the others put together, I should imagine. Indeed, I am not sure that he does not know more about it than I do. He has been giving the matter attention longer than I have. I thank him very sincerely and congratulate him on the part he has played in getting the Bill to this final stage. My hon. Friend referred, to the statement made by the right hon. and learned Member for the West Derby Division of Liverpool (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe) on the Second Reading about whether this Bill was going to 'be used ruthlessly. The term "bulldozer" was used by the right hon. and learned Gentleman, but I may say that in that very Debate he was reminded by an hon. Member that he, the right hon. and learned Gentleman, had had a good deal to do with laying this egg, because the Bill was largely his work. I do not know what lie contemplated when he was for the time being Attorney-General in the late Coalition Government, or what he thought about how the Bill would be worked.
I cannot speak for any future Government, least of all for a Government drawn from the opposite benches, but I can speak for His Majesty's present Government. I do not want to mince my words at all, and I give the most specific assurance that we do not regard this Bill as a weapon with which to beat down opposition or to carry proposals through without due regard to all the interests who ought to be considered. I think it would be wrong to use the Bill in that way and so long as this Government continues I


can assure hon. Members that this specific pledge which I have given will be honoured to the full. By this Bill we hope to do something which will really improve our Parliamentary procedure and ensure that justice is done to petitioners authorities and statutory companies, who feel a grievance. We hope to get on to the Floor of the House discussions which go to root of Ministerial Orders. As to the term used in the Explanatory Memorandum I hope I am not to be expected to apologise again and to stand here in sackcloth and ashes, because I made full apologies during the Committee stage, which my hon. Friend accepted, and I must deprecate this repetition of references to faults that have been committed not by me but by others.
As I was saying we hope that by getting on to the Floor of the House discussions which go to the root of a Ministerial Order, instead of allowing them to be conducted in Committee upstairs, in what my hon. Friend called "forensic" fashion, we shall have done something to reduce the cost of Committee proceedings, and thereby to help, in particular, the smaller local authorities and statutory undertakings and also private persons who may be affected. The cost of these proceedings under the existing system arises very largely from the fact that counsel and witnesses are kept hanging about for days and days waiting for some details to be settled while time is being spent on proving the Preamble. I hope that process will now be considered on the Floor of the House itself.
I should like to make the position of this Government, and I think of any other Government, clear in this matter. The present Government are just as anxious as were the previous Government, which first introduced this Bill, that all interests which ought to have a hearing shall be heard but—and I do not think that hon. Members opposite can dissent from this—it must rest with the Government of the day, whatever its complexion, to advise Parliament whether a particular issue raised on a Ministerial Order is or is not one of policy on which the Government may feel bound to use their Parliamentary resources in support of their point of view. I should imagine that would be accepted by the Front Bench opposite. I gather that it was certainly in the mind of the previous Government

when the Bill was under consideration by them.
We have had one or two references to the Boundary Commission, the Town and Country Planning Acts, and so on. My hon. Friend the Member for the High Peak Division made the point in Committee that the question whether or not an Order went upstairs would, under the Bill, depend upon what he regarded as accidental circumstances. He instanced a hypothetical case, which has been raised tonight, of an Order made by the Local Government Boundary Commission for uniting certain areas. If only two areas were involved and one of them resisted union that, in my view, would, unless it specially went to the Joint Committee, be an issue to be determined on the Floor of the House of Commons, whereas if the Order contemplated the union of 20 areas the desire of one of them to be left out would then become a question to be met by a petition for amendment. If I understand my hon. Friend's case aright he regards this as an anomaly, but I think the instance really proves the opposite of his contention.
It is obvious that a proposal to leave out one of two intending partners in the case of a union of local areas does go to the root of the matter—it is a fifty-fifty disagreement—and if the Government policy points to that union as being desirable the Government must treat it as a matter which ought legitimately to be dealt with as one of principle on the Floor of the House. If, on the other hand, it is a case of the union of 20 areas and one of the suggested partners seeks to be omitted, while this may in certain circumstances go to the root of the matter, in many other instances it would be really a matter of detail.
Take the case of a small water authority desiring to be left out of an Order under the Water Act, 1945. That Measure was severely criticised, and not least by some hon. Members who, had they survived the flood of the last General Election, would now have been on the Opposition benches, on the ground that it left the provision of water supplies too much to local initiative and showed too great deference to local opinion. The last Government admitted that in common with its predecessors it had hitherto left these matters to be dealt with by Private Bills, many of which have appeared in


the last 25 years in this House. That Government introduced, and carried through this House, what is now the Water Act, 1945. Quite clearly it was the intention and desire of Parliament that the provision of water should in future be regarded as a national responsibility. The Minister of Health may feel himself obliged, in the interests of public health, to make orders which are considered by some water undertakers to be detrimental to their interests, whether those undertakers be private companies or local authorities.
The Minister of Health and any other Minister similarly situated under the Water Act or under the Town and Country Planning Act, must reserve the right to treat such an Order as a vote of confidence, if in his opinion the carrying out of national policy in that particular matter, whether it be water or other things, would be impeded by the exclusion from this particular order of an individual undertaker. That power to determine whether national policy is involved, or is likely to be imperilled or embarrassed, must rest with the Minister. That is perfectly consistent with allowing any undertaking of that kind to lodge a petition of amendment. I hope that that will meet many of the objects raised by the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Charles Williams: What of the position if one big local authority, such as a large town, wants to absorb part of two counties, including several small local authorities? How would that be dealt with in that way—a large county borough extending, and in doing so absorbing a large area round it in which there was very great feeling against the absorption?

Mr. Greenwood: If a Ministerial order were made, those who felt aggrieved would have the right to have their case heard by this judicial body, this joint committee, which would sit upstairs. I should hope myself that Ministers would act generously in the matter, and in no sense try to deny the right of petitioners to have their case fully heard.
On the point of Standing Orders, I gave an undertaking in Standing Committee which I am prepared to repeat to the House as a whole. It is vital that the two chairmen, the Chairman of Ways and Means and the Lord Chairman of Com-

mittees in another place, should have guidance as to how they should conduct and carry out the very heavy responsibilities—and I quite agree that they are heavy responsibilities—which will be cast upon them. It seemed to me right that for their guidance we should have to submit new Standing Orders to deal with these matters. In fact, it is really not a matter for the Government, but as representing the majority of people in this House now I can say that we shall shape and submit to you, Sir, as Chairman of Ways and Means, draft Standing Orders for the full approval of the House. It is the intention of His Majesty's Government that those Standing Orders shall be such that no petitioner's rightful claims shall ever be rejected. I cannot use any stronger language, and I hope that now the House will give their assent to the Third Reading of this very difficult, very complicated but very important Measure.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — HYDRO-ELECTRIC DEVELOPMENT (SCOTLAND)

7.16 p.m.

Mr. Snadden: I beg to move,
That the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board—Constructional Scheme No. 2 Confirmation Order, 1945, dated 22nd August, 1945, made under the Hydro-Electric Development (Scotland) Act, 1943, a copy of which Order was presented on 23rd August, be annulled.
In moving this Motion, which I realise is a serious thing to do, and no doubt an unpopular step to take, I would like to make it plain to the House at the outset that I only decided to do so after the most serious and earnest consideration. I have lived in the district concerned, I have walked over almost every yard of the ground affected and have seen for myself precisely what is involved in this major operation of the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board. I have also attended the public inquiry and studied the evidence given before that tribunal. It would be an under-statement to say that I speak only for my constituents, because I have reason to know that large numbers of people on both sides of the Border who love historic Perthshire and the central Highlands, view with genuine alarm


what is proposed under this scheme. As the House knows, the scheme has been confirmed by the Secretary of State, but the final responsibility, as is right, rests with this House under Section 5 (5) of the Act of 1943.
We are all agreed about the vital part to be played by hydro-electricity in the development of Scotland for the future of our country. I do not think we shall be selfish about it, or allow any sectional interest or view to stand in the way of progress. We are all agreed on developing our national wealth, and we know that certain beauty spots may have to be sacrificed in the present age, and that, here and there, beauty may have to give way to utility and service. No one wants more than I do to see a rapid development of the electricity supply, especially to our farms and crofts throughout rural Scotland, but I think the House will also agree that the beauty of the glorious lochs and majestic rivers of Scotland, as well as the latent power hidden in them, is equally a part of our inheritance, and if that inheritance does not demand a fierce uncompromising protection, it at least demands our most serious consideration before drastic hands are laid upon them, and they are removed from the scene for all time.
When the Hydro-electric Development Act was before the House I was on the other side of the House, and I believed, as I think the majority of hon. Members believed, that the special Amenity Committee set up under that Act was specifically appointed for the very purpose of giving us adequate protection against the destruction of amenities. The Amenity Committee was, in fact, to be the bulwark against any possible engineering irresponsibility. Hon. Members know that the Committee has rejected that part of the scheme with which I am concerned. Further, the future livelihood and the general welfare of the people affected cannot be lightly brushed aside. Was not the main purpose of the Act of 1943 to foster and increase the welfare of the people of the Highlands?
The case, I submit, against this scheme is not based solely on agricultural grounds, although serious damage is to be done to the agricultural industry. Nor is it based on the adverse report of the Fisheries Committee which recommended that certain parts of the scheme should

be abandoned. That aspect of the case will be dealt with probably by one of my hon. Friends. My case is simply that the price to be extracted in the loss of amenity from one of the loveliest parts of Scotland is too stiff a price to pay even for power, and that it was never the intention of Parliament, in giving powers to the Board, to allow them to endanger a countryside so lovely and so famous. Further, at a time when everything possible should be done to encourage the tourist industry, upon which this district entirely depends for its livelihood, one of the most famous tourist centres in the whole of Scotland is to suffer irreparable damage.
I find it impossible to reconcile the proposal with that of the Secretary of State to set up a special expert committee to go into the whole question of the future of the tourist industry with the object of suggesting schemes for the encouragement of that industry and to increase the population of our Scottish tourist centres. Yet we are starting off by boxing the landscape and ruining one of the most famous tourist centres in the whole of our country, and certainly the most famous in the Central Highlands. If the ex-Secretary of State were here, I think even he would concede that the Hydro Electric Board committed a major blunder when right at the beginning of their existence they decided to launch out on one of the most controversial schemes it was possible to imagine. When this deed is done the beauty of the heart of Scotland will be forever broken. Once this amenity is destroyed and the natural beauty of the district damaged, it can never be replaced. According to the Board's own survey, this scheme will contribute only one-twentieth part of the untapped energy still available in the Highlands of Scotland. Is it to be wondered at, there lore, that the public, even after an inquiry, are still unconvinced that such a drastic scheme is necessary, or that those of us who supported the Act of 1943 ever contemplated a plan endangering a countryside so rich in natural beauty and known to tourists not only here but throughout the world?
The development scheme of the Hydro-Electric Board contains 102 different schemes. This is only construction scheme No. 2, and I refuse to believe that no alternative could be found to this


scheme that would not do the damage that it will do. I do not want to weary the House by plunging into the details as to what is involved in this scheme. It has engendered so much heat already and there has been so much publicity about it, that it is not necessary for me to say very much about the scheme itself. But it is necessary for me to say a word about the position, and if I may attempt to present to hon. Members a picture of what is to happen, they would see a power dam thrown across the River Tummel right on Pitlochry's doorstep, coming up almost to the town itself. The resulting reservoir overflows the road to the Pass of Killicrankie, eliminating that beautiful stretch of the River Tummel which most of us know so well, sweeping away with it the river sidewalks and also the unique Highlands Games Ground, which has taken its place in the Highland Calendar, for I do not know how long. Old Cluny bridge that we love so well will disappear, and the famous Falls of Tummel, recently given to the National Trust, will be no more. The Garry becomes a mere burn, and the Pass of Killicrankie becomes a rockery memory. Further, think what the Falls of Bruar and the Falls of Struan both mean to Pitlochry, because motor coaches come from that town with visitors. Both these disappear. Finally, Loch Tummel is swollen to twice its size, inundating large areas of agricultural land and throwing out the prospect of muddy flats at the further end of the loch.
If the scheme would have been of any use to the district perhaps even the loss of the Falls of Bruar and of Struan could have been tolerated, but it is the disfigurement at Pitlochry that rankles and has caused so much bitterness. No amount of tinkering by any architect, however skilled, can possibly compensate for these things. There are 18 separate works including three reservoirs, three generating stations and seven aqueducts, the whole affecting an area of 322 square miles of the county of Perth. If anyone wants to see what is to happen, I recommend that they should see the "Illustrated London News" of a fortnight ago, where they will see what is being swept away.
I think the House will agree that this is a stiff price to pay, and the price is

made doubly stiff because of the fact that no possible benefit comes to the people who are to foot the bill. Some hon. Members may know that Pitlochry lies in the heart of the Central Highlands, and 50,000 visitors come to it every year quite apart from those who come for the day in motor coaches. Large numbers of these people are working people from Dundee, Perth and other industrial areas, who have not the time nor money to go further a field. From the point of view of employment, it is Pitlochry and its beauty that has produced so much prosperity for its many hotels and shops. What is contemplated in this scheme, I submit, involves a very heavy sacrifice for these people. They are not being unreasonable about it, but they do feel that their future livelihood, quite apart from the national loss involved, is at stake.
We should ask ourselves whether it was ever the intention of Parliament when the Hydro Electricity Act was passed that such a drastic scheme could ever be claimed to be necessary in the public interest, a scheme which I would remind the House was rejected by the specially appointed Amenity Committee, rejected by the Perthshire County Council, the principal local authority, rejected by the National Trust of Scotland and by a host of other people far too numerous to mention. This is not a question of contemplated sabotage of vested interests. There is widespread and intense feeling about it all over the country. I have myself received petitions signed by over 6,000 people. What then has the Amenity Committee set up under this Act to say about it? Has that body any influence at all in determining whether a scheme shall go on or not? Was any other source of supply seriously considered before it was decided to lay hands on a great tourist centre? These are some of the questions we have to ask ourselves. During the Committee stage of the Hydro-Electric Bill, anxiety was expressed by many hon. Members about the loss of amenity. The Secretary of State disarmed the critics by this assurance:
I beg the hon. Member and his friends to believe me when I say that this was one determination of the Government—that though we all want electrical development, and want to see the amenities of civilisation provided for the people of the North of Scotland, we do not desire to give powers to any Board to interfere wantonly and unnecessarily with


one of our great heritages, the beauty and the glory of the North of Scotland.
Later in the same Debate, this is what he said in reply to the hon. and gallant Member for Argyle (Major McCallum), who asked a question on the same subject:
If the hon. And gallant Member wants an assurance that we intend to appoint the strongest possible Amenity Committee and to give every assurance to that Amenity Committee that every reasonable recommendation that they make will be strongly enforced and backed up by the Scottish Office, I can cheerfully give him that assurance."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th May, 1943; Vol. 389, c. 343–353]
What are these assurances worth today? How, in fact, does all this work out in practice? Has the Amenity Committee been unreasonable in its report? The Amenity Committee, after the most careful and deliberate examination of the scheme, recommended by a majority that that part of the scheme which places a power house on the doorstep of Pitlochry should be abandoned. This is what the Amenity Committee said:
The Committee considered the effect of the rise and fall of the enlarged Loch Tummel and realised that there may be some unsightly areas at the West end, but they feel that this must be accepted; and further regret the projected disappearance of the Falls of Bruar. They are of opinion, however, that it would in principle be most regrettable that such exceptionally beautiful highland scenery as the lower reaches of the Tummel and the Garry in the vicinity of Pitlochry should be submerged. This scenery is easily accessible to the public and the Committee consider that it should be preserved unspoilt as a national asset.
Was that an unreasonable report? The Hydro Board rejected the advice of this committee and, rather surprisingly, at the inquiry it was admitted and adversely commented upon in the Tribunal's report that no alternative source of supply had even been seriously considered by the Electricity Commissioners and the Central Electricity Board. That comment is made in paragraph 20 of the Tribunal's report. Equally curious is the fact that in paragraph 41 this failure to consider any alternative source of supply is actually taken as justification for approving the Tummel Garry scheme to the extent that the reinforcement and backing of the Scottish Office contained in the Secretary of State's assurance that I have already quoted is not disclosed. I think we can assume that if it existed at all it has been extraordinarily ineffective. The objections

of the local authority, which the right hon. and learned Member for Hillhead (Mr. J. S. C. Reid), who was Lord Advocate at the time, told us in the Committee stage would be a powerful factor at any inquiry, have been swept aside as though they were of no account.
What does all this mean? Surely that the Amenity Committee is as dead as mutton. Its influence has been precisely nil. It was a waste of time setting it up. Whether we like it or not, we have to admit that a complete breakthrough has been achieved by the Board's mechanised forces, and, as far as I can see—and I have given a good deal of study to this matter—there is nothing whatever to stop them fanning out over the whole of Scotland, like a gigantic squadron of bulldozers, as my hon. Friend said, fanning out over the whole country and eliminating everything, including statutory committees and local authorities. It is clear to anyone who has studied the Tribunal's report, from paragraphs 17 and 27, that all that is necessary is for the Hydro-Electric Board to get a certificate from the Central Electricity Board to the effect that they are short of power.
When they have got their certificate they can push through any scheme, because then it is held to be in the public interest to do it. It is admitted in paragraph 27 of the Tribunal's report that considerations of amenity were not even taken into account by the Electricity Commissioners. This question, it says, is left to the two statutory committees. The whole thing is beautifully arranged. The inquiry quite clearly shows that the Tummel Garry scheme was selected simply because it was most convenient for the supply of the Central Electricity Board, whose sole concern is to supply industrial England and some parts of Scotland.
The Commissioners and the Electricity Board, who appear to be quite inseparable so far as I can find out, and neither of whom are located in Scotland, are in complete control. Nothing can be done without their consent, but anything can be done at their command. It is not the needs of the Highlands that constitute the governing factor. I submit that that is contrary to the intention of Parliament when we put this Bill through the House. It is quite clear that the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board can snap its fingers at anyone, safe in the knowledge


that they have in their possession a certificate from the Central Electricity Board stating that they are short of power, and they can reject the recommendations of the Amenity and Fisheries statutory Committees with impunity. That was the big shock that the public got at the public-inquiry. I put it to the hon. Gentleman who is going to reply: surely it is time they should put their cards on the table face upwards and abolish all these committees altogether instead of misleading this House and the public in this way. I would not be surprised if these committees abolished themselves altogether. What is their future? They have nothing to which to look forward, and no work to do. Their appointment has turned out to be a sham, and the assurances given by the former Secretary of State, although at the time they seemed to me to be as clear as water, have turned out to be just as thin.
No part of Scotland is now safe from the Hydro-Electric Board, and any further inquiries will be a waste of time. If this scheme does not constitute an invasion of the beauties of Scotland—what the former Secretary of State called the beauty and the glory of the North of Scotland—I would like the Minister to tell me what is an invasion. The Amenity Committee think it is an invasion, the National Trust for Scotland think it is an invasion, the Perthshire County Council, who are to gain £20,000 in rates, think it is an invasion, or they would not oppose it, and so do a great multitude of people all over Great Britain. But the Hydro-Electric Board can wash out the lot if it can urge that power is required.
I cannot believe that when the Hydro-Electric Bill went through this House it was the intention of Parliament, or even of the late Secretary of State, to give such powers to any board. The Tummel Garry scheme is the most radical of its kind ever produced or that can ever be produced. It is not a case of a remote glen like Loch Sloy. It is not comparable to the Galloway scheme, where the tourist industry is widely scattered. What would have happened if beautiful Glen Trool had been taken? It was saved by being taken over by the Forestry Commission. Durham and Lincoln have both been threatened by electricity development, but they have succeeded in avoiding destruction of their amenities. Perthshire has a small popu-

lation and is a rural area. It has already paid the price of the existing Grampian scheme, and must again foot the bill. I do not think that the relentless nature of this scheme should have been tolerated at any time.
If someone could show me that some direct benefit was to come to the local community, I might have to say that there was something good in this scheme after all, but that is not so. If hon. Members will look at page 9, paragraph 16, of the Tribunal's Report, they will see these words:
No direct benefit to local consumers is contemplated.''
Pitlochry and district get neither current nor cash. They suffer both ways. Most of those hon. Members who supported the Hydro-Electric Act in 1943, did so because of the promises held out for direct benefit to the Highlands of Scotland. The Measure was clear on that point. It told the Board to meet the needs of the ordinary consumers, including those in isolated areas. The Minister in charge of the Bill made it clear that the Central Electricity Board would only be supplied on that basis. What do we find now? Those priorities have been completely reversed. First on the list are our old friends the Central Electricity Board again, because they are short of power. The hope for benefit to the Highlands seems to me a very long way off. What about the new industries for these areas and for Scotland? Have the Government any other industries, apart from this generation of electricity? What are the electricity plans for Scotland? If it is Perthshire's turn today it will be someone else's turn tomorrow. Are not the local authorities entitled to an answer to their questions? The whole of Scotland are entitled to know.
Finally, I wish to emphasise again that out of 6,000,000,000 units estimated to be available from the Highlands of Scotland, only 300,000,000, or one-twentieth part, will be contributed by this scheme. I submit that it cannot be maintained that this scheme is essential to the development of Highlands water power as a whole. An immense responsibility rests upon us tonight in the knowledge that this is a great test case, not only for the Hydro-Electric Board but for other people. We know that the statutory committees are as dead as the dodo. No county councils in Scotland are powerful enough to


oppose this scheme, and all inquiries are a farce and a waste of time. Even the veto of Parliament ceases to be a safeguard. There is a reference in Clause 9 to the fact that an Order must be placed on the Table and if within 40 days it is challenged it will be withdrawn, without prejudice to another scheme coming forward. Within 40 days we can do something about it, but the Highlands people believe that Parliament should have the final say. It is no good saying that the Secretary of State, having confirmed the scheme, must therefore have it, supported by the Government's majority.
This is not a party issue and this matter should be left to a free vote of the House. We have twice tonight heard the word "bulldozer." This same bulldozer effect will be in evidence if this scheme is carried in the Lobbies of this House through the overwhelming Government majority. Let us remember the effect of this scheme, and protest against such arbitrary action. The safeguards are of no use at all, and it is clear that far more oppressive powers than were ever intended have been given to this all-powerful corporation. It is our duty to refuse to approve the scheme. The Hydro-Electric Board ought to reconsider their policy and produce a scheme which will give us the current we require for what has long been recognised as one of the most beautiful and famous parts in the whole of Scotland.

7.49 p.m.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: I beg to second the Motion.
The House has heard the hon. Member for West Perthshire (Mr. Snadden) and I wish to associate myself in every way with what has been said on behalf of East Perthshire as well. Knowing nothing about Parliamentary procedure, I think it is unfortunate that we have to pray for the annulment of this Order. It sounds on the face of it as though we were opposed to hydro-electrical development in Scotland, but nothing could be further from the truth. Myself and those with whom I am connected are all in favour of hydro-electric power in Scotland, but instead of praying for annulment of this scheme we should have preferred to ask for its temporary withdrawal so that certain features of it might be reconsidered. I ask the Government whether they will withdraw the scheme temporarily and go

into details with us and with the people of Scotland. I have very carefully read the Act of 1943. Although I was not in the House at the time, I followed with the greatest possible care what was happening here, when I was with my unit on the Continent and elsewhere. It seemed to us outside the House crystal clear that both Houses had declared that certain things were to be done and there was real approval of what they said.
I cannot emphasise too strongly that in my opinion, and in the opinion of those with whom I am associated, there are certain things which Parliament has laid down but which the Hydro-Electric Board, with the Electricity Commissioners behind them, have deemed unsuitable and have decided to change. I believe that Parliamentary government means that Parliament says what will be done, and sees that nobody outside alters it. What we have to decide tonight boils down to this: shall Parliament be paramount in this matter, or the Electricity Commissioners? I cannot believe for one moment that this House will abrogate its powers in that way. We have to decide whether it will be Parliament or the Electricity Commissioners—

Mr. John Lewis: Is my hon. and gallant Friend suggesting that the Electricity Commissioners are not responsible to Parliament?

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: We have to decide whether what Parliament in the Act said should be done is in fact to be done, or whether what is said by the Electricity Commissioners in these proposals shall be done instead. Certain things were promised, and the first of them was that a comprehensive survey of the potential water power of Scotland should be drawn up, in order that one scheme might be weighed against another and one place against another. It cannot be maintained that that comprehensive scheme has ever been drawn up. It is quite absurd and, I suggest with great respect, unscrupulous to suggest that a comprehensive scheme has been drawn up. Bit by bit, in halfpenny numbers, little schemes have been added, and only with the greatest difficulty have the Perthshire County Council extracted from the Hydro-Electric Board what their latest schemes were. That is not a comprehensive scheme, and I am perfectly sure that these things have been brought forward


piecemeal—I hate to have to say it—in order to quieten the opposition to this particular Measure. Any real comprehensive scheme would deal with alternative schemes and offer them for consideration. The chairman of the Hydro-Electric Board, probably the most highly respected man in Scotland today—and worthily so—has said:
We have examined five other major schemes, all of, them good in their way.
But the engineer of the Central Electricity Board has said:
We have not considered alternatives seriously.
The tribunal itself, set up to hear this case, said:
It was with some surprise that we learned that in preparing their supply programme the Central Electricity Board had assumed that they could count on energy to be generated by the Tummel-Garry scheme, had made no discount of the possibility that the scheme might not receive confirmation, and had not seriously considered any possible alternative source of supply.
Is it possible to reconcile those statements? Do they together make it obvious that a comprehensive scheme has been considered and that comparisons have been made? I think not. I repeat, did Parliament mean that a comprehensive scheme should be drawn up, or did it not? I maintain that it did, and I think it is essential, quite apart from the rights and wrongs of this particular scheme, that what is in the Bill should be carried out as Parliament directed.
The question of amenity has been touched upon generously by my hon. Friend, and I only propose to refer to it very slightly. As I tried to emphasise the other night in the House in the matter of trunk roads, I do not believe that amenity is just a matter of beautiful scenery or pretty view9. It is something far greater than that. It is a vital part of the lives of men and women, it is organic, and it has been well said by one of the bodies concerned—I cannot remember which—that amenity is "a total aspect of things, and not just an ornamental adjunct. "Can we honestly say what, if any, value has been placed on true amenity by the Hydro-Electric Board in this matter? I think not; the answer is that nothing has been considered in that light. I am convinced that it was only because of the emphatic, and repeated assurances from

Mr. Johnston, when he was Secretary of State, and from my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hillhead (Mr. J. S. Reid) when he was Lord Advocate, that the Act of 1943 ever reached the Statute Book. Can that Mr. Johnston be the same man who gave an interview to "The Scotsman" on 8th November? Why does he suddenly say that the amenity committee was not unanimous? His assurances in 1943 were not conditional on unanimity, they were conditional upon the amenity committee saying that such and such things shall be done, and I have always understood that in a democratic country what the majority say shall be done has in fact got to be done. It does not require a unanimous vote of the whole House of Commons to say that a thing must be done, and the same applies to an amenity committee.
Now I come to a point which is of very great importance for my constituents, namely, the matter of fisheries. May I beg hon. Members to get out of their minds at once, if they have it there, what I might call the salmon-fishing, grouse-shooting and deer-stalking complex? I am not concerned with that nor are the people who sent me here, though I would say in connection with salmon fishing that the wealthy sportsmen who have been able in the past to buy a rod on a stretch of river have brought a great deal of prosperity, money and employment to Scotland. Hon. Gentlemen opposite may laugh—

Mr. Gallacher: They have driven the men into the cities to the labour exchange queues.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: What I say is perfectly true, they have brought much money and employment to Scotland. But I am not concerned with them for the moment, I am concerned with the salmon net-fishing industry. In my constituency, on the lower reaches of the Tay, a large number of men are employed who are entirely dependent upon that fishery industry for their livelihood. They are some of the best people you can meet anywhere in the world. The industry is valued at about £20,000 a year, and its capital value, I understand, is nearer £1,000,000 than £500,000. The industry has been working well and has been well developed, and the Tay District Salmon Fishing Board, which runs it, was regularly constituted by Act of Parliament.
It is their job to preserve and develop the fisheries in that district, a big district which extends from. Red Head on the Angus coast right down south to Fife Ness; the whole of the coastline, the estuary of the Tay it self, and the tributaries, lochs and burns which flow into it. That is their responsibility, and they employ some hundreds of men directly, and thousands of people indirectly.
Those people believed, and we believed with them, that when Parliament appointed a Statutory Committee to deal with fisheries and to protect the fisheries side, Parliament meant what it said. That Statutory Committee recommended that certain things should be taken out of the constructional scheme but, their recommendations were turned down. What are those people, who depend upon this for their livelihood, to think when Parliament says that something will be done and then it is turned down? I suggest to the House that that is not a fair way of dealing with this most important industry to Scotland. There will be hardship and unemployment among those fishermen if this scheme goes through. There will be more unemployment among them than there will be employment after the constructional period of the scheme is over.
Perhaps I may be permitted to describe how the matter affects the fishery industry. The salmon spawning beds lie principally in the River Garry. That river is the one which is to be practically emptied. Salmon are very temperamental things. They come from thousands of miles to exactly the same river every reason. The River Garry is to be canalised—I think that is the modern word—so as to enable the salmon topass from their old spawning beds and go further on, where they will be expected to spawn. The compensation offered in the way of water to help with the spawning of the salmon is to be six per cent. of the normal run. The experts say that 33⅓ per cent. is what is required. Compensation water is dealt with in the scheme in these words:
The provision of the scheme with respect to compensation water shall be accepted by all persons interested as full compensation for all water which the Board impound, abstract, divert and use for the purpose of the Tummel-Garry project.
In exchange for this, 6 per cent. will be trickled over the Garry. This means the end of the Garry as a spawning bed, and

it means, not the complete end of the salmon in the Tay, but a reduction on such a scale as will make the industry certainly not self-supporting, and practically wipe it out. I cannot believe hon. Members in any part of the House are desirous of that happening. In what I have said I have not exaggerated. Even the Tribunal has said that this compensation is not generous. There may be 6 per cent. of compensation water, but there is no compensation for the people who will lose their livelihood when this scheme goes through. Some people may say that salmon fishing is a luxury trade. That is open to dispute. Certainly it is no luxury trade to the people who depend upon it for their bread and butter.
The basis of all these schemes and the Act is said to be the regeneration and restoration of the Highlands of Scotland. It is impossible to have a scheme for the regeneration of the Highlands if all these things are taken one by one and not correlated with one another. This scheme is entirely a matter of the Board, which lives and has its being for the purpose, getting current from somewhere, and that is all they think about. What about its relation to water for other purposes than hydro-electric development? The other day the House gave a Second Reading to a Bill dealing with large planning for water for other purposes than hydro-electric development. I see no relationship between the two so far. What about the vast amount of water that is required for agriculture in the North of Scotland, and will be required in greater quantities for that big development of agriculture which is the only hope of restoration of the Highlands of Scotland? One may talk about other industries, but that is the big industry which will put the Highlands on their feet again. What about the water that is being taken from those watersheds and places on which agriculture is dependent? I think that probably both things can be done, but it is essential to correlate one with the other. What about the afforestation programme? What about fishing? What about housing? We hope to have a large quantity of new houses in the Highlands of Scotland. They are badly needed. Is this scheme correlated with any housing plan? I think not—any more than it is to any of the other things. I maintain that without a proper correlation of all the industries and requirements of the


Highlands there will be nothing but chaos, and that the whole thing will gradually degenerate, as everything that has been done for the Highlands so far has degenerated, into a piecemeal thing which gets one nowhere. I would like to quote from the Report of the Water Power Resources Committee, which reported in 1921:
Apart from the larger schemes, the development of small power schemes in country districts, by contributing to local activities, would tend to prevent migration to the towns. The power requirements of the average farm are but small, and quite small schemes would provide abundantly for the necessities of local agriculture and small village industries and serve to give a supply of electricity for lighting purposes. Such small schemes could be put into operation at once, followed by medium schemes for light industries.
What was true in 1921 is still true. There is no question but that small local schemes are the answer when it conies to electrical development in the rural areas of Northern Scotland.

Mr. Stephen: Why were these small schemes not put into operation by the Tory Government?

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: I cannot tell the hon. Member. After all, it was not all Tory Government during those years, and there were plenty of opportunities for those who were not Tories to do it. Nobody did it, and that is what I am complaining about. It is time for us to do it now. I will not at the moment say more about that Committee—

Mr. Gallacher: It is a good line.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Local schemes, which could be financed by the Government, would answer this question much better than the devastation of Central Perthshire. Hon. Members will remember the story of the Apostle Paul and Agrippa, and how, after a lot of talk, Agrippa said to St. Paul:
Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian.
I might say now, "Almost I am persuaded to be a Scottish Nationalist." On these matters the Scottish Nationalists are correct, although I differ from them in many other things. This Scottish question is not being dealt with purely from the point of view of Scotland. The main object is to get power for the grid, and most of it goes either to the South of

Scotland or to England. Scotland is already producing more electricity than it can use. Why is that not being diverted to Scottish uses instead of fresh schemes of this kind being brought forward?

Mr. Cook: On this question of Scotland producing more electricity than she can use, will the hon. and gallant Member give the figures that were given by the Minister of Fuel and Power yesterday?

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: I cannot give those figures. They have been at the disposal of the House, but I have not got them at the tip of my tongue at the moment. To sum up, the scales are heavily weighted against us. The hon. Member for West Perth has already mentioned that point in connection with the Government's intentions tonight, but I hope hon. Members in all parts of the House will exercise their own judgment, regardless of any Whips. Why are they to be put on? Is it done to save the face of the Secretary of State who has confirmed the scheme? I cannot believe that it is. I wish to say how much I regret that he is still not able to be with us to night. I know that he would come out of this, if he agreed to withdraw, reconsider and possibly amend it, a far greater man than if he confirmed what has been done so far. He would not lose face, neither would the Government; they would gain immensely. I have no doubt that in Scotland the Government would considerably gain in status if they gave reconsideration to this particular Scheme. I feel quite sure that a large number of hon. Members opposite have had a letter from Mr. Donald MacPherson of Inverness, a leader of the Labour Party in the Highlands and a member of the Inverness Town Council. Among other things which he says is:
The methods and activities of the Board during the past year have been such as to fill us with acute apprehension.
He also says, going on to develop the theme:
The country is today virtually in the hands of engineers thinking only in terms of concrete, machinery and volumes of water.
He appeals for support for a Motion to have the Tummel-Garry Scheme annulled and says:
I ask that Parliament shall exercise its function and keep in check any powerful combination of interests which might attempt, as they have done in this case, to take powers into their hands which it was never intended that they should have.


So speaks a leader of the Labour Party in Inverness. I have kept the House too long and I ask to be forgiven, but this is my constituency and I am speaking for my constituents. In all the circles in which I have been—and they include people of all parties; I have thousands of signatures here, many from Socialists, thousands of them, and so has my hon. Friend the Member for West Perth. This matter—this whole business, the way it has been treated, and the way the Board has gone about things, to say the least of it—leaves a very nasty taste in the mouth, and I beg of the House and the Government not to tie themselves up to what, quite frankly, I believe to be a tremendous ramp. I am not asking for anything more except reconsideration and amendment, but I must Pray for annulment under the Procedure of the House, and I second this Prayer in all sincerity, asking that we may have the support of the House on behalf of the people of Scotland, and of Perthshire in particular.

8.14 p.m.

Mr. Cook: May I crave the indulgence of the House in making this my first effort? It gives me quite a kick to make my maiden speech in this House on such a subject such as the Tummel-Garry Scheme. I thought that the hon. and gallant Member for Perth (Colonel Gomme-Duncan) was going to use the name of David S. Graham, who is known, I am sure, to every Member of the House and who lives in the constituency which I have the honour to represent. I have taken the liberty of making speeches in the constituency in favour of the Tummel-Garry scheme and have had the overwhelming support of the people of Dundee. He has told me in letters that he has had 100,000 signatures; there are 112,000 voters in this city. That gives the House some idea of the imagination of the protest organisers. The hon. and gallant Member talked about the salmon fishing men losing their employment. I wonder if Members of this House ever heard of Shipbuilders Securities Ltd., which completely wrecked the homes of many shipbuilding employees in this country? I want hon. Members to look at the pages of Scottish history and to think of the beautiful scenes. One can go to Ullapool and see the beautiful crofts on the side of Loch Broom, lovely things, with white-painted walls and red roofs, with aching

hearts inside them; women compelled to plough and furrow the land while the men go and do jobs at sea, grubbing for a living. All as a result of this so-called amenity and nothing else.
We have to have a true perspective of what we mean by amenities. If we mean the right of deer-stalkers to pay £50 for guns and to hire and "fire" gillies as a seasonal occupation, let us have it. It we mean also that these same salmon fishers should be hired and "fired" in a seasonal occupation in the cause of amenity, all right, then, let us have it. But it means much more to the people of Scotland than that. Many good Scotsmen go South looking for work, far too many. I would remind hon. Members in this House who read in the Press of the complaints of queuing in this country today, that the biggest queues in Scotland were found at the employment exchanges, and at the parish council by people looking for public assistance. All this question of amenities is so much balderdash.

Mr. Snadden: Why set up a Committee?

Mr. Cook: I am not responsible for the actions of the last Government, thank goodness. I have one or two criticisms of the Bill to make, and I will make them but I want to deal with the case which has been put now. It consists of amenity and nothing else. I am trying to show what amenity has meant to the Highlands of Scotland—glens darkened, villages depopulated as a result of the Enclosures Act and all the other things that went before it. I want Scotland to be treated as a distressed area as it ought to be, and that is an indictment of the policy of successive Tory Governments in this House from time immemorial. The present Government are reaping the heritage of all this exploitation of so-called amenity. It might be as well to let the House know what gives me the right to talk. I was employed in the electrical industry until I came to this House.

Mr. Messer: And now my hon. Friend has changed to gas.

Mr. Cook: I am also a member, a very proud member, of the Clarion Cycling Club and of the Scottish Youth Hostels Association, and I have toured Scotland in successive years. Amenities may be interfered with by the Hydro-Electric Board for a period of five years and after


that I am sure the amenities will be reasonably good, and probably better. All these people who talk about amenities have never travelled further than Pitlochry; they ought to extend their visits a great deal further.
Let us examine the whole question of the need for this electricity. The hon. and gallant Member opposite said that Scotland produces more than she can use. I put two Questions on the Order Paper to the Minister of Fuel and Power in order to be sure of my facts. One found that the position is precarious as far as electricity is concerned. During the period of the war I was in charge of a very big plant and I can testify to this, because I was called out of my bed sometimes between 11 p.m. and 6 or 7 in the morning in order to restart machinery which had been stopped because of a voltage drop. Then the Clyde Valley Electric Power Company came along asking us if there were not some machines which we could close down. The House will note that some opponents of the scheme have dealt with the alternative schemes in a very crude way, and there has been no case made here for an alternative scheme. I think we ought to examine this question of an alternative scheme. It has been suggested that we should use steam generation. The picture has been painted by the Minister of Fuel and Power of the serious position in the coal mining industry, again as the result of the stupid policy of the Tory Governments in successive years and of private enterprise. I am sorry it I have got to be blunt, but it is the fact, nevertheless. We pushed all our young and able miners into the Forces. We gradually sickened the miners and gave them such horrible conditions that they left the industry, which is now short-staffed and in a deplorable condition as far as mechanisation is concerned. We have also got to realise that coal is a dwindling resource in this country.
So we have to examine every possible alternative. It has been suggested that this wonderful thing called atomic energy might come to our aid, and many of the opponents of the scheme have referred to it in glowing terms. Far be it for me to claim myself as a prophet, but, judging by the way we are going on now, it will be years before we even think of com-

mercialising its possibilities. We must realise that, on account of the difficult position we are in, these schemes have got to go on, and nothing has been said in this House to convince me that the line I have taken is wrong. I agree with the hon. and gallant Member for Perth, who said that these matters should be co-related. We should have hydro-electric development along with the electrification of the railways and along with a Distribution of Industries Bill. The "Care taker Government"can answer that one. These things must be brought together, and I can assure the House that the Secretary of State for Scotland and his Undersecretaries will get no peace from me until such time as we have a co-related plan, not only for Scotland, but for the whole of Britain.
We came into power on a basis of planning, and I suggest in all earnestness that we should go the right way about it in the beginning in accepting and trying to put through some of the Measures which earlier Governments have failed to do. I appeal to every hon. Member not to examine this matter as a question of amenities, because if you talk about amenities you will have to look at the history of Scotland and its depopulation, but we must press very determinedly for the introduction of a Distribution of Industry Bill in order that the light industries shall follow, and they cannot follow until you provide the basic power, and the Tummel Garry scheme is that basis.

8.24 p.m.

Mr. Alexander Anderson: I trust that the House will extend to me tonight, in making my first speech, the usual courtesy extended to a new Member. I rise to support the policy of the Government in the electrification of the Highlands, and I have, in that hydro-electrification, a double interest. I represent a constituency in Central Scotland where the position of power is acute. Motherwell has been a heavy steel industry town for generations. It has known prosperity only during wars; it has had a Gethsemane between the wars, and, today, those of us who represent constituencies of that type in Lanarkshire find ourselves faced with a problem of a local area with a declining steel industry set on top of a dying coal industry—a lopsided economy which can only be corrected if there can be pumped into


that area power of any kind at reasonable rates, and the only power available within a reasonable distance of us is the hydro-electric Highland power. I do not subscribe to any narrow interpretation which says that electricity generated in the Highlands is to be exclusively the property of the Highlands or devoted entirely to the industrialisation of the Highlands. It is the clamant need for electric power which drives me to support this Tummel Garry scheme.
Secondly, I am a Highlander. I know every inch of the Highlands and, since I was elected to Parliament, I have four times visited the sites of the main hydroelectric schemes in Scotland, and can speak with knowledge of them. Scotland, and the Highlands particularly, have had a sad and tragic history. Culloden, Flodden and Bannockburn are names to which some shreds of glory remain, but the blackest side of Scotland's history has not one redeeming feature about it—the Highland clearings which drove out of Scotland her finest men and women and which were backed by the very people whom, today, we find opposing the Tummel Garry scheme. If we take the story of the Highlands down to modern times, we find that, even in the last 20 years, when hon. Gentlemen opposite held uncontrolled power in this country, the story of the Highlands has been a story of progressive deterioration, of progressive depopulation, silted harbours, inshore fishing grounds raped by vested trawling interests, declining village industries and the population drifting, sadly and inevitably, either to work in the overcrowded and under-employed cities of the South or to give new life and virility to the Colonies and every corner of the British Commonwealth of Nations. It is because the supply of electricity, and the capital profit to be accrued from that supply, is so vitally necessary to the restoration of prosperity to the Highlands that every genuine Highlander will support that demand.
We are not, however, going to be uncritical, nor, I hope, are we going to deny that there are cogent arguments put forward by those who support the annulment of the Order. When this scheme was originally put forward the conception of the scheme was of first-class quality. We were given the story of a Tennessee Valley Authority scheme for Scotland, in

which there would be a co-ordinated and co-related policy of Highland development, and to that I do not think anyone would object, but, in the interval, we find that the scheme has somewhat deteriorated. I would like, in all sincerity, to make certain criticisms which are directed to show that this scheme should go forward with the full support of all the people of Scotland, and without the opposition even of the people of Pitlochry, through whose streets in August I have often found it difficult to push my feet because of the obstruction of Rolls Royces.
The Central Electricity Board which we have in Scotland today is not an adequate body for the task. It is concerned exclusively, as far as we have information—and I hope that at the close of the Debate the hon. Gentleman who is to reply will correct me if I am wrong—an electricity producing body. It has become, I think we can all say quite fairly, an agent of the Central Electricity Board, and those of us who have had experience in local authority work with the Central Electricity Board have an uneasy feeling that that Board has been captured by the private interests in electricity, and that local authorities who generate and distribute their electricity do not get from that Board the fair treatment that we are entitled to expect.
It has had a remit which is too narrow. It has not, as far as we know, gone ahead with its plans. Lastly, and I say this with regret, it has been most maladroit in its contacts with the local authorities with which it has had to deal. I say that regretfully because I believe that its intentions were good and its motives were of the highest, but it has been dictatorial unconciliatory, tactless—otherwise a good deal of the opposition to which it has been subjected could have been avoided. I believe, therefore, that the Secretary of State for Scotland should convey to the Board the fact that local authorities and local bodies in Scotland have some right to protest in a democratic country.
When all that has been said, there still remains the Tummel Garry scheme, which is the key scheme to provide both the finance for carrying on the smaller schemes and the electricity to make up for the present deficiency in electricity.
In spite of the argument, put forward very powerfully and very effectively by the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross Western (Mr. Snadden) there still remains something to be said. I do not share the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee (Mr. Cook) that amenity is a matter of no account; in fact, I was certain on my visits to these hydro-electric schemes—

Mr. Cook: On a point of Order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I did not say that I have no regard for amenity—

Mr. Anderson: I should be very sorry to impute to the hon. Member anything he did not say, and I am very glad to withdraw that statement. I was saddened on my visits by the complete disregard for amenity in hydro-electric construction and operation that I saw carried out by private companies. I had the misfortune to see that sunless Highland horror of Kinlochleven. I saw Black Mount Reservoir, a heap of grey mud, I saw Loch Treig, Loch Ericht, and Loch Rannoch showing stretches of slimy foreshore. This happened under private enterprise, and I hope that this new method will give us a better return. There is no one in Scotland more anxious than I am to preserve the amenity of the Highlands because, while in the Highlands we have often had want, unemployment and poverty, thank God we have never had the squalor which the same conditions produce in populated urban areas. We recognise that there must be some sacrifice of amenity—it is the privilege of Pitlochry to make that sacrifice for the benefit of Scotland—but I would like to be assured by the hon. Gentleman that in this construction that is to go ahead, every possible regard will be paid to the amenity of the district. I do not believe that modern industry need be ugly. I do not believe that the beauty of Pitlochry and district need be irretrievably spoiled by progress. In fact, I believe that if it is wisely handled we can give it an added beauty, and I would urge upon His Majesty's Government to take every possible step to ensure that this is done.
With regard to the second objection, the fishing objection. I am not the proprietor of a salmon fishing, but I have occasionally, by illicit means, been able to acquire a salmon. I know how capri-

cious they are and how difficult it is to make any alternative way to lead them to the spawning beds, but I believe that, if the best advice is sought and found, salmon fishing need not be irretrievably spoiled. Perhaps I might remind the House that we have spent about three hours today discussing the subject of artificial insemination, and that it is possible in a modern fishery to have hatcheries which can provide for the spawning beds which are taken away. That is common practice even in this country, and it is carried out largely in New Zealand. So that can be got over, given good will and the desire to do so.
Finally, I would appeal to this Government and to those in charge of this scheme. This is the first scheme of reconstruction in Britain carried out by a Socialist Government. It is important for Pitlochry and for the Highlands that it shall be carried out successfully, and I would urge the Government to take every possible step in their power to see that they do nothing permanently to spoil a very lovely district, and also to see that those wasting resources left to the Highlands are used to the best advantage of the people of Scotland.

8.37 p.m.

Mr. J. S. C. Reid: It is my privilege and pleasure to have the opportunity of congratulating the two hon. Members, fellow Members from Scotland, who have just addressed this House for the first time. Their styles are very different. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Dundee (Mr. Cook) obviously has much to say, and he says it with great vigour. I am sure that his ideas will not lack adequate expression so long as he is in this House. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Motherwell (Mr. Anderson) speaks with intimate knowledge of the subject on which he was addressing the House. He spoke with a well-reasoned approach to the question, and I am sure that we shall value his contribution immensely in all debates that affect our native land.
I felt it impossible to give a silent vote tonight because I had some considerable share in passing through this House the Act which authorised the scheme. I had no share, of course, in the preparation of the scheme, and therefore I hope I can come to this question tonight without any prejudice. Of this, however, I am quite


certain, that the intention of Parliament in passing the Act was to confer a benefit on the Highlands of Scotland, and if a scheme will benefit other parts of Scotland, or of England as well, and at the same time, so much the better. However, I should not support any scheme under this Act unless I was convinced that that scheme would confer a benefit on the Highland areas. I should certainly not support any scheme which was calculated simply to give cheap electricity to other parts of the country, and to inflict damage on the Highlands.
Therefore, the question which I propose to examine, from a somewhat different angle from that taken by previous speakers, is whether this scheme is going to benefit the Highlands or not. However, before I come to that, I would like to emphasise what was said by one of my hon. Friends behind me. I think it would be very much in the interests of the Government, and very much in the interests of Scotland, if we had a free vote tonight. After all, if the Government are as convinced as I am that this is a good scheme, they should not refuse such a vote. Public opinion in Scotland is, obviously, somewhat disturbed, and if the Government can see their way to allow every Scottish and English Member to sit here—as I am very glad to say a great many are here—and listen to the arguments, and give a vote as a juryman, "yes" or "no," then Scotland will feel that the case has been put to the best jury in Britain, and a definite verdict returned, one way or the other. But if Scottish Socialist Members are not to be able to tell their constituents whether they voted for this scheme, because they believed in it, or because the Whips told them to, the value of the vote will be very much smaller, and, therefore, it would be better to have a genuine expression of opinion.
I now pass to the merits of the scheme, as I see them. This Hydro-Electric Board has two main duties. One is to bring electricity to areas in the Highlands where there is no electricity at present, and the other is to develop industry in the Highlands. According to figures published recently, there are something like 140,000 people in the Highlands living in areas where there is no electricity available. Plainly, a number of them cannot get electricity brought to their

doors because they live in districts too remote. It has been estimated that about 100,000 people in the Highlands can get electricity brought to their doors if the distribution schemes are subsidised, but that few, if any, can have electricity brought to their doors by schemes which have to pay their way from the beginning. Therefore, the whole problem they have to consider is where is that subsidy to come from. Quite rightly, I think, it was decided by the last Government that the subsidy should not come from the Exchequer; it should come from profits which the Board can make by selling Highland power for export. They must sell for export if they are going to make a profit because you cannot get much profit from the development of industry in the Highlands. To attract industry to the Highlands, you must sell your electricity at something near cost price. Therefore, as has been already recognised in the scheme, before the Board can get on with its real job, it has got to set in train methods of making a profit, and a very large profit, too, because it would seem that it is going to take an annual subsidy running well into six figures before the Board can adequately fulfil its duties of distribution.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: The right hon. and learned Gentleman said just now that his interpretation of the Act is that before the Board can get on with its proper duties, it must make large profits. There is nothing, I submit, in the Act, to suggest that at all.

Mr. Reid: I did not mean, of course, that they must necessarily do that before they begin distribution. In fact, the Board are not doing that, and they have distribution schemes at the same time. The Act provides that, over a period of years, the Board shall balance its accounts—a period which may be 10 years, or more, or less, but 10 years is a likely time—and, if the Board is going to run distribution schemes at a loss, then it must, at the same time, run a profitable scheme if it is to balance its accounts in such a period. In those circumstances, it is obvious that the Board cannot carry on without profit-earning schemes as a basis. There is a very limited number of suitable profit-earning schemes, a fact that has emerged quite clearly.
It so happens that I have been interested in this matter for some 20 years. I do not profess to be an expert, in any way, but I have a certain amount of knowledge, and I do not think anybody will contradict me when I say that there is only a limited number of schemes in the Highlands suitable for development for export. Many of them are much more suitable for other purposes. I think I am right in saying that, even if this scheme is passed, it is not certain that all the available profit-earning schemes in the Highlands will enable distribution to take place in the outlying areas to the fullest possible extent. But it is nearly certain that, if this scheme is annulled, a large number of people in the more remote areas of the Highlands will have to go without electricity during our generation, whereas, if the scheme is passed, that same body of people will get electricity. That seems to me to be a very direct benefit to the Highlands of Scotland, and it is that benefit we must set against any damage that may be done.
Before I come to the damage that may be done, I would say a word or two about the tribunal, because I believe there is some misapprehension in some quarters about it. The tribunal blamed, rightly or wrongly, the Central Electricity Board very much for not having provided plans for an alternative source if this source was denied to them. But that has nothing whatever to do with the Hydro-Electric Board. It is made quite clear, if anybody cares to look at the Report, on pages 14 and 18, that, so far as the Hydro-Electric Board is concerned, they did examine alternatives, and found these schemes much the most suitable for the things the Board had in view. I think that is a misapprehension about the tribunal. I have also heard it suggested that the amount of profit to be made out of this scheme is very doubtful. The profit depends on the price of coal. As coal rises above 35s. at on, so the profit rises, and so does the number of people in remote areas who can be benefited. It might help the House if the hon. Gentleman who is to reply could tell us the present price of coal, and give us an estimate of what the likely profit will be if the present price is maintained. Thirty-five shillings is the figure in the Report, but I imagine the price is higher than that. It

would be interesting to know the price now.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State far Scotland (Mr. Buchanan): I can tell the right hon. and learned Gentleman that at the present price of coal, it is estimated that the profit will be, roughly speaking, about £85,000.

Mr. Reid: I thought it was a good deal higher than the figure given in the Report. Hon. Members opposite have as good an opportunity as I have of knowing what will happen to the price of coal, but I take it that the figure in the Report is an under-estimate of the amount of profit to be made.
Having said so much to clear away some of the misapprehensions about the tribunal report, I would like to make one or two criticisms of that report. I am satisfied that the tribunal is attributing too much attention to the needs of the rest of the country for electrical power, and that they have not sufficiently stressed in their findings, the benefit to the Highlands area. I think it would be as well if they thought again, and adopted a somewhat different line of approach. I think that they misrepresented to some extent the relationship of the Hydro-Electric Board, the Electricity Commissioners and the Central Electricity Board. The Central Electricity Board have nothing to do with it at all. All they have to do with it is that they are, by law, compelled to buy whatever is offered to them by the Hydro-Electric Board, but they have no control over the Hydro-Electric Board policy. The Electricity Commissioners have a veto but they have no right to dictate policy to the Hydro-Electric Board. Knowing the Hydro-Electric Board, I should be very surprised if they allowed themselves to be dictated to, but if they did, I think it well that some one in this House should say, here and now, that they had better be completely independent in future, and that we in this House shall back them if they are.
The Electricity Commissioners' veto is for two purposes. One is to make certain that the schemes are technically sound, and the other is to make certain that the Board's policy is financially sound. Obviously you must have these two vetoes in order to protect the guarantee of £30,000,000 which the Treasury are empowered to determine under the Bill. If


there is any difference, we can question the Minister of Fuel and Power, and we can resolve the difficulty here, where it ought to be resolved. I do not think that the tribunal can have attributed much weight to this consideration, because I cannot believe that the tribunal would have found in favour of this scheme if they had really found that the Hydro-Electric Board had been "concussed" into it, against their better judgment. I do not think that there is any ground for suggesting that. I pass to the question of the damage likely to be set against the great benefits which I have described. I am not going to say anything about fishing, I know little about it, except this. Evidence on the question appears to be rather vague and appears not to have dealt with the point of how far the previous interference with the Grampian Company's river system has affected fishing lower down the river. It would have been most valuable to know that in our estimate of the possible benefits of this scheme.
I come to the real crux of the position—the question of amenities. I hope that this Debate will not become a battle ground between those who say "amenity first, and the rest nowhere"; and those who say that amenity should hardly come into the picture at all. I think we want to look at this in as judicial a frame of mine as we can bring ourselves to, at this time of night. We must ask is any damage to amenities in this case really serious or not? If it is really serious and if people in Perthshire are going to be hurt to any material extent, then I am no believer in that form of progress which consists of robbing Peter to pay Paul. I should not accept benefits to the remote areas in the Highlands as an adequate substitute for loss to the people of Perthshire. But I do not believe there is going to be any substantial loss to the people of Perthshire. On this question of amenity we have all to make up our minds—

Mr. Snadden: If the right hon. and learned Gentleman accepts that, then he is objecting to the evidence of the expert Committee.

Mr. Reid: It is wrong for this House to delegate responsibility to anybody else. This House cannot delegate its responsibility to an Amenity Committee or to a Minister or to anyone. You set up an Amenity Committee to advise him. You

get advice by three to two—a narrow majority. There is no doubt that you may pay more attention to the findings of three than two; but you have to weigh it. I will not be a party to any idea that we have to delegate our responsibility in this matter to anybody. Let me examine the matter. I do not profess to know the district as well as some hon. Members here, but I did take the trouble to go round and to visualise at each step what it was going to look like. I cannot see that the character of the neighbourhood is going to be seriously damaged, or indeed damaged at all.
To begin with, this glen is not in a very prominent position. It is not going to be made an eyesore for miles around. You have to go and look for it. Therefore you are not going to damage or alter the character of the neighbourhood as a whole. Are you going to do any serious damage to the glen itself? I do not think so. I tried to picture in my mind the difference between a stream and a winding loch about two or three miles long. Subject to one point, although there is going to be a considerable change, I cannot see that there is going to be such a great disturbance of amenities as some people seem to suggest. The one point is the fluctuation in the water level of the loch. I hope that the Board will take every possible care to see that we are not left with unsightly banks when the waters go up and down daily. I think that there are means of avoiding that, and I am sure the Board will do their best to avoid it. I do not think that is going to be a very serious factor.
I cannot believe that there will be any financial loss, not one penny, to the inhabitants of Pitlochry. I cannot believe that one person less is going to stay there than have gone in the past, or that there will be any loss of trade in the town. I think the afforestation and the cutting of woods which have occurred in various areas in the Highlands during the last 20 to 25 years have changed the character r of many a scene far, far more than will be done, possibly, by these hydro-electric schemes. The Highlands have survived a good deal in that way, and I think they will survive everything that is going to be done here.

Lieutenant Skeffington-Lodge: Does my right hon. and learned Friend realise that the Falls of Tummel are going to be seriously diminished?

Mr. Reid: I have tried to say that I drew some distinction in my mind between the character of the neighbourhood as a whole and, individual, and no doubt, very beautiful bits of scenery. I think it is right that we should preserve the character of the neighbourhood as a whole, but honestly I cannot get unduly enthusiastic about the Falls of Tummel.

Lieutenant Skeffington-Lodge: May I suggest that the right hon. and learned Gentleman's sense of beauty is somewhat astray when he makes a statement like that?

Mrs. Jean Mann: May I—

Mr. Reid: One at a time, please. After all, there are so many beauty spots round about Pitlochry, and I cannot really single out the Falls of Tummel as far the most beautiful waterfall in Scotland. It is one of many beautiful waterfalls. It is a question of weighing these things in the balance against bringing electricity to 20,000 people in the North. Does the hon. Lady wish to say anything?

Mrs. Mann: My right hon. and learned Friend has replied to the question I was going to put.

Mr. Reid: In all these cases everyone of us is the guardian of the future of the Highlands. We want to approach all these schemes as they come along with an inquiring eye, but we must allow ourselves to be convinced. Let me say this about amenities. I have been convinced about the amenities in this case, but there are other schemes which I know the Board has in prospect as to which I am not convinced as yet that the amenity points have been met, and I am very far from saying that because we decide, if we do decide, that any loss of amenity here is not to stop this scheme that that is to be taken as a universal precedent, and that if we find there is loss of amenity in a future scheme we are to be told, "Oh, you brushed amenity aside here and it is done with forever. "I am certainly not going to give any vote of mine on that footing, but shall reserve my position with regard to amenity in future when schemes may come forward about which I would take a different view. But I am convinced that this is a good scheme, a scheme the

benefits from which will very much outweigh any possible damage, and that being so I am bound to go into the Lobby against the Prayer.

9.3 p.m.

Major Ramsay: I should like to claim the indulgence of the House for a moment or two, because I am a maiden speaker. I shall not occupy the time of the House for very long, but there are one or two points I should like to make. I think that I am the first speaker this evening to come into this House with a perfectly open mind on this subject. I realise, on the one hand, the pressing necessity for electrical power and the urgent need for electric light throughout the countryside and the Highlands of Scotland. At the same time, I was brought up with a deep love for the Highlands, and to vote in favour of a scheme which might impair the amenities—and I shall have a word to say about amenities later—of the Highlands is like stabbing one's first love in the back. I am not quite sure at this juncture whether I have the strength of mind to take up the dagger. As I have said, I have the good fortune to know the Highlands of Scotland fairly well, and a week or so ago I was privileged to be shown round this particular area in greater detail than I have ever been round it before.
I should like to try to draw up a little balance sheet of my own. I have a feeling that this balance sheet may appear to be rather one-sided, in that it would appear to be in favour of the annulment, but I should like to repeat that I have an open mind. One other thing which I should make quite clear to the House is that I am in full favour of hydro-electric development. I feel that somebody has to stop and think before we proceed with legislation which may give us cause for regret subsequently. I feel that this wagon on which the scheme is being borne has shown a remarkable shortage of brakes. To proceed with my balance sheet, there is no doubt that there is a demand both for electric light and electric power. I am told that the Central Electricity Board of Scotland will have a greater demand upon it during the next few years than it can possibly meet, unless its resources are supplemented from some other source.
I know full well from my own constituency how the blessings that electricity


can bring in a house are needed up there, to make the housewife's lot in life bearable. It is not for me to elaborate on the demand. I accept it as a fact. I know it is there and that it is a very great demand. I am more concerned with the distribution of this power. If the Board is to pay its way and under the Act it must do so it must go where the markets are good, where it can sell its wares at a profit. It must make a profit somewhere in its activities if it is to subsidise schemes in other places which are uneconomical. I have heard the criticism in that if electricity is sent to England it will be robbing the Highlands and the whole of Scotland of those assets which are theirs by right. I do not hold with that argument. It is an insult to tell this House, or to say at any time that Scotsmen do not want to share their assets with Great Britain as a whole, and I know that there is no Scotsman in this House who would not agree with me on that point.
What I feel is, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hillhead (Mr. Reid) has said, that the electricity produced by the Board must be given to the Highlands, and given to the extent that the Highlands can use it, and to none other; that the Highlands must be a priority area of suply, just as is the case with the Central Electricity Board. I realise the need for profit, but I also realise, only too well, the need of the High lands for this commodity. I should like the Joint Secretary of State—I do not see him on the Front Bench at the moment—to give an assurance that the Highlands and rural areas of Scotland will not be forgotten if this scheme goes through. It has been popular inside and outside this House to try to define the word "amenity." I hate definitions of any kind and I have learned to hate the word "amenity" because I am not quite sure if I know what it means. No two people have given me the same definition, and to be perfectly frank, when speaking to people outside this House, I have never heard so much nonsense talked on any subject as on this one.
I have heard some say that the scheme proposed for Pitlochry will improve the scenery, and I have heard others say that it will ruin that scenery. These two extremes seem to me to present a case with which something must be wrong. They

cannot both be right. I am, therefore, trying hard to make my own definition. I believe that great charm of the Highlands is their natural beauty, that is their scenery, the sculpture that is God-made and not man-made. It is the greatest asset of the Highlands, this natural beauty and charm. But I do not think that defines amenity fully. I am quite sure that amenitiesare something which, if this scheme goes through, are going to be spoilt—or at least there is a risk that they are going to be spoilt. I have a feeling that if man could improve on the natural scenery it would still be intolerable to the Highlanders. I believe we either keep natural beauty or we lose it. It is a matter about which we have to make up our minds this evening. I am certain that if the scheme goes through we shall have disregarded our aesthetic sense of values and I put before the House to night that this is a matter of great moment. Some people outside the House have said that the scheme might improve the scenery. I have myself seen on many occasions the effects of similar works on various waterways in Scotland and in England, I have in mind Lochs Laggan and Treig and I can assure the House, or those Members who have not seen them, that certainly in the case of Loch Treig a very ugly result has been achieved. There is a gap between the natural bank and the water of some 60 to 70 feet of sheer ugly mud flats.
In the case of Loch Laggan, at one end of it there are at least 2½ miles of mud, and very unsightly mud at that, and, of course, the usual 50 foot stretch of bare rubble. I am told that in the case of Tummel-Garry the Board do not intend large fluctuations in the level of the lochs to take place. I am told that the fluctuations are to be confined to a matter of, I think, four feet. That may not mean that we are going to have these large and ugly banks to the various waterworks around Pitlochry, but I do maintain that there is only one possible natural bank to a river or a loch, and I do not think it is possible to preserve the natural beauties of the Tummel Garry area in this way. Therefore, in my opinion, if this scheme goes through, amenities will be lost. We have to face that; there is no doubt about it.
And now for a few words about fish. I would like to associate myself with my hon. Friend who said that he was not re-


presenting the rich salmon fishers, or those who regard fishing from their own selfish point of view. In my opinion, in this matter of fish, we are taking a big gamble. I have heard incredible differences of opinion as to whether or not fish will be prevented from spawning or whether the spawning is going to be improved. I do not think the representatives of the Hydro-Electric Board have been guilty of saying that the salmon stock is going to be improved, but they have come very near it, and I have heard other people say that it is going to be improved. I have also heard that it is going to be ruined. I do not believe it is necessarily going to be ruined, but I know that 80 per cent. of the spawning grounds are going to be swept away.
I would like assurances from the Under-Secretary of State on one or two matters. The only remaining spawning areas for fish in the Garry will be in its tributary, the Erochty. I do not believe that at the moment it is proposed to allow sufficient water to come down it to provide adequate spawning, in view of the fact that it will have to represent four times as great an area. Neither am I happy that salmon will be able to pass freely and climb into the Lower Garry—that part of the Garry between the Erochty junction and the Tummel junction. It is a difficult bit of river, all shingle, and at present it is extremely shallow. I would like to express my heartfelt gratitude for the good intentions of the Board in this matter. I am told they are going to try to drive a channel with a bulldozer up this part of the river so that salmon can pass freely up it. I believe if there were that little extra water coming down the Erochty and subsequently down the Lower Garry, it would make a tremendous difference to the salmon spawning. I would like to repeat that we are taking a gamble in this matter.
There is one other point about salmon that I would like to mention. It is that we should look at the salmon-spawning picture as a whole, and not piecemeal, as apparently is the case at the moment. It does seem to me that we think about the scheme first, and then we think about the salmon. We should try to take the picture as one, with a view to preserving one of the greatest assets of Scotland. I am extremely disturbed on one point. Hon.
Members on this side of the House have said that there is apparently inadequate machinery for abolishing the scheme if necessary—if it appears to be unpalatable. I must confess that I treat this with the greatest concern, because a great many other schemes will follow this one. I added them up the other day and I made the number 45. I was told that that was an underestimate. Say it will be 45. If there should be 45 other schemes coming before this House there is a first-rate chance that one or two of them will be unpopular. I would like an assurance from the Joint Under-Secretary that he will insist upon adequate machinery to chuck out a scheme which is not any good.
There is one other matter with which I would deal. Hitherto, the Hydro-Electric Board have employed what I have heard described earlier this evening as a "bulldozer." I see in my notes that I have written down "steamroller methods." I think a steamroller is bigger, so I am going to stick to the steamroller. They have tried steamroller methods ever since the initiation of the scheme. I do not accuse the Board of wishing to do so. I am almost convinced that it was never the intention of the Board that any such methods should be employed. It just so happens that they have done so. I believe this fact is at the root of the dissatisfaction which centres round this scheme at present. I believe that all these letters which have been sent to hon. Members on all sides of the House centre round the feeling that this scheme has been carried on a steamroller. I would like an assurance from the Joint Under-Secretary that, should there be an occasion in the future when a similar scheme arises and it is found to be undesirable, he will see that it is treated in the way in which it should be treated.
There is one last remark—[Interruption]—I think it is the last but not the least. It amazes me that the Government should have put on the Whips this evening. I know I am not the first Member to say so, but it is astonishing that they have taken this action. I cannot possibly believe that it is a Party matter; surely it should be confined to those who have studied the scheme, who know something about the Highlands, who know something about the needs of electricity, and who qualified amongst those who tried


to define the word "amenity." To my mind it is an act which the country can only link up with the steam roller to which I have already referred. Hon. Members on both sides of the House may have forgotten what I said at the beginning. I said I had an open mind on this scheme, and although I know I have argued in favour of the annulment, I still have that open mind, and I am willing to be persuaded if such a thing is possible.

9.26 p.m.

Colonel Erroll: I rise this evening with a twofold sense of diffidence, firstly because it is the first time on which I have addressed this House, and secondly, because I speak as the representative of an English constituency on what is essentially a Scottish matter. However, I have observed that Scottish Members do not hesitate to interfere in what are primarily English matters, and I feel that this scheme affects not only Scotland but the whole of Great Britain, because we are all going to suffer if the Highlands suffer. It is in the interests of us all to see that the Highlands get their opportunity of prosperity in the growth and development of cheap electric power. The hon. and gallant Member for Forfar (Major Ramsay) suggested drawing up a balance sheet. I would like to carry that Scots' canniness a little further, and suggest that the Scots ought to realise what a very good bargain they are getting out of this scheme. They do not seem to realise, for example, that the Scottish Lowlands and England are going to pay for cheap power for the Highlands. The scheme is so arranged that the Lowlands and the much-maligned Central Electricity Board are going to take all the surplus power which is produced, and the profits from the sale of that power will be used for financing uneconomic schemes in the far North of Scotland.
The whole point is that the Central Electricity Board and the Lowlands gain nothing out of this, because they have to pay for the power at the rate of the most efficient steam station in Scotland, or in England when adjusted to Scottish coal prices. So they are paying just the same, and the very large margin of profit goes to the Board for the furtherance of uneconomic schemes in the far North. Furthermore, as and when development in the Highlands is stimulated, so can the Highlands

draw more and more from the Tummel-Garry scheme and reduce the amount supplied to the Central Electricity Board. The Highlands therefore get it both ways; in the initial stage when it is uneconomic, and in the later stages when they are able to take more power. I am also surprised, as Scots are always concerned with waste, that they should be prepared to see the present regulated water which comes from the Tummel Bridge station of the Rannoch scheme running to waste. [Hon. Members: "It is not waste."] With this scheme the water would be trapped in the enlarged Loch Tummel. There is waste because at present it flows irregularly, and the new scheme, with the enlarged Loch Tummel, will enable the delivery to be evened out in the lower reaches of the river. There is then the question of cost. I do not know whether it is realised how cheap this power will be. It will be cheap because it is a hydro-electric scheme, and also because the capital will be paid off over a period of 80 years. It is estimated that it will be cheaper even than the use of atomic energy. It is computed that even if atomic energy could be supplied free to the boilers of a steam station, the energy produced from such a station would still be more expensive than the energy supplied by this projected scheme. Do not let us be hoodwinked by the atomic energy merchants. Finally, on a practical point, this scheme produces a link-up with the Fannich scheme and with other schemes further off still. Those are some of the good bargains which the Highlanders will get out of this scheme.
I turn now to the question of amenities. It is far too easy to assume that this scheme will reduce the amenities of the Highlands and that it will reduce the attractiveness of the scenery. In some very important respects the amenities will be improved. There is at present a very barren glen, the glen Errochty, that will become a fine sweeping loch, which I suggest will be much better than the present deserted glen to which nobody ever goes. Nobody would want to go to a barren glen, but I know many tourists who would go a long way to see a fine sweep of water, and a fine dam holding it up. I have heard Loch Tummel described as being horribly swollen by this scheme. The swelling, which includes the raising of the level by 17 feet, will in fact submerge the present unsightly


Western end, and the swampy areas, which cannot be used for agriculture, will go under for ever, and there will once again be a fine sweep of water. The level of the loch will be regulated to a greater extent than is possible at present, so that there will not be the mud banks and swampy ends which now exist, but instead will be a loch of much more constant level and much bigger. I suggest that that will be a very considerable gain in amenity value.
We are told that stretches of the River Tummel will be submerged and so become a winding loch. Is that such a very great loss to amenity? There are many dull, winding rivers which might well be converted into lochs. I ask those people who have been on the Eighth Army overland leave scheme, and have traveled through the Tyrol, to remember that part of their journey which took them through the Puster Thal in the Northern Tyrol. In that valley a dam has been built just above Mühlbach, and what was a winding gorge and a rough and stoney river, has now become a lovely winding lake with incomparable scenery. Hon. Members shake their heads; perhaps they have not seen the scene; I have, and very lovely it is. I suggest that it is at least a moot point that the amenities of the River Tummel will not be improved by its being changed into a winding loch. There are also those—and I think it is a point of view that should be expressed—who consider the presence of engineering works an amenity in themselves. That is borne out by the fact that a large number of tourists now visit the Galloway Board scheme, in order to see the works, in their setting. So that what is lost by tourists who will no longer come, may well be offset by those who will come to see the works.
As regards fishing, of which I am not a follower, I have very little to say, but I would like to reassure the hon. and gallant Member for Forfar regarding the Errochty Water, and the two rivers—the Errochty Water and Upper Garry—at present, under natural conditions, have an insufficient flow of water at certain times of the year to be reliable for fishing purposes. Under the terms of the Board's scheme the Upper Garry will be allowed to run dry and the Errochty Water will have sufficient compensation water ad-

mitted to it to enable it to be thoroughly suitable for fishing purposes at the correct season of the year. [Hon. Members: "It will not be sufficient."] I am sure that the Board has been conciliatory in many matters. If the compensation water is not adequate, a little more will be released. It is not a very great problem, but merely a matter of raising or lowering, the levels of the weirs and the dams.
I now turn to the question of procedure. The Hydro-Electric Board and also the Central Electricity Board have been castigated, and the engineers have been castigated by an hon. Member, who said that the Highlands were in their hands. I would remind the House that everybody connected with the scheme is a Scot. The Hydro-Electric Board members are all Scots. The tribunal were all Scots. The civil engineering consultants are Scots. Although not entirely a Scottish firm, the partner concerned with the scheme is a Scotsman. These men are not combining together to do irreparable harm to the Highlands. They have come out in favour of the scheme and it would be a great mistake if we overturned their decision too lightly. Finally, I do not think I can do better than to conclude with a sentence from the Memorandum issued by the Scottish Home Department. It sets out very clearly in a few words the essential problem at issue. It says, that if
this scheme may serve in some measure to bring the amenities of life where few existed before and to inject new energy into the straths and glens of the Highlands, then we feel that the submergence of Clunie Bridge, albeit beautiful, and the conversion of a few reaches of two Highland rivers into the waters of a winding loch, is but a small price to pay.
In that I fully agree, and I hope to vote against the Prayer.

9.40 p.m.

Commander Galbraith: On me falls the very pleasant duty of congratulating the hon. and gallant Member for Forfar (Major Ramsay) and the hon. and gallant Member for Altrincham (Colonel Erroll) on their maiden speeches. I think that the House appreciated the very fair manner in which the hon. and gallant Member for Forfar put his case. I am certain that hon. Members for English constituencies appreciated the point which he made that


Scotsmen were willing to share their assets with those who are less fortunate. Perhaps he should have added—always when there is a profit to be made out of it. The hon. and gallant Member for Altrincham spoke with great fluency, and I am certain that we shall all listen with attention when either of these two hon. and gallant Members address us in future.
Many Members of this present Parliament will remember vividly the Debate which we had in February, 1943, on the Second Reading of the Hydro-Electric Development (Scotland) Bill. They will recollect that it was an entirely Scottish Debate, and that the main theme which ran through every speech, was the urgent need for the economic regeneration of the Highlands and Islands of Scotland. In moving the Second Reading, the then Secretary of State for Scotland, Mr. Thomas Johnston, with his opening words, spoke of the heavy transport charge in the Highlands as being a discriminatory burden against the economic welfare of the people. He said that industries were going elsewhere, that the population was bleeding to death, and, what he considered most serious of all, the young were emigrating from the Highlands. With those words, he created, not only an impression, but a conviction, in the minds of all who heard him that the main, if not the sole, purpose of the Bill was to relieve the existing economic conditions and establish industries, create work, prosperity and happiness in the straths, glens and coastal areas of Northern Scotland. He went on to speak of what he called the principles of the Bill. The North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board, he said, was to give priority of supply to ordinary consumers. He hoped that large power users might be attracted, though he could not guarantee that. He suggested that Scotland might procure some share of the electrical, mechanical and metallurgical industries in Canada and Norway. He thought that industries would be attracted to the North of Scotland as a result. Later, he said that, when the Highland consumers had been met, he hoped and expected that large power users would be supplied, and any surplus would then go to the grid, the profit from the sale of that surplus being used in reducing distribution costs and developing new schemes in remote areas.
I wish the House to take particular notice of that order of priority, especially in view of what the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Hill-head (Mr. Reid) has said. The order of priority which was laid down by the former Secretary of State for Scotland was that the supply should first go to the Highland consumers, then to large power users in the Highlands, and only when these demands had been met, should the surplus be exported to the grid. I venture to suggest that there was no hon. Member in the House that day who did not believe that the purpose of the Secretary of State in introducing the Bill was the regeneration of the Highlands. He stressed that most particularly, and gave his own definition of amenity. I quote the actual words he used:
The chief amenity I should like to see carried into the life of the North of Scotland is the amenity of social security, the right to work and the amenity which derives from remuneration for a useful service in the world. Here, in this Bill, directly and indirectly, is some contribution to that end."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th February, 1943; Vol. 387, c. .188.]
Having heard the then Secretary of State on that occasion, I have no doubt whatever that the object which the Government had principally in view was the provision of work and the establishment of industry in the Highlands. It is true that I expressed some doubt as to whether success would be achieved and whether the setting up of the Hydroelectric Board would result in the provision of any great measure of employment, but, be that as it may, what I want to bring to the realisation of this House to night is that the Bill establishing the Hydro-electric Board was passed on the assumption that it would greatly benefit the Highlands of Scotland.
I turn from the scheme itself to inquire what benefit it will bring to the Highlands. We have had the reports of the Amenity and the Fishing Committees. The Amenity Committee dealt chiefly with scenery, not with amenity in the sense in which that word was used in the earlier Debate to which I have referred by the then Secretary of State. There can be no doubt that the scenery in and around Pitlochry is going to be changed; whether that change will be for the better or for the worse is a matter for speculation. Whether or not the new type of


scenery will attract more or fewer tourists, no one can tell; the matter will remain in doubt until it is resolved one way or another by actual experience. How, then, the change of scenery will affect the economic position of the people in the district is meantime uncertain.
In regard to fishing, even greater doubt exists. When I, like other hon. Gentlemen, speak of fishing, I am not concerned so much with the private owner or with the individual sportsman like the hon. Gentleman the Member for Mother-well (Mr. Anderson). I am concerned with the employment that comes from that industry. Today we know that 2,000 people are employed directly in the net fishing of the Tay, while 2,500 are employed, in addition, as boatmen and gillies. In all, therefore, the fishing industry of the Tay gives employment to some 4,500 people. As I understand it, salmon which enter the Tay or any other river, do so with but one object in view, and that is to spawn. Here I would like to refer to Cd. Paper 6660 and refresh the minds of the House on what the tribunal, which was appointed to inquire into this constructional scheme, has to say on this matter. I would like the attention of the House while I quote parts of the report verbatim. They said:
We are satified that the waters of the Upper Garry above Struan and its tributaries will be rendered useless for spawning and that spawning beds on the Tummel in the areas which will be affected by the raising of the level of Loch Tummel and the construction of the proposed Pitlochry reservoir will also be destroyed…On the other hand the flow of water, being regulated, will be more uniform and, if they do not damage themselves, a higher average of fish may reach the remaining spawning beds.
I shall have a word to say on that subject later. The tribunal goes on to say:
It is plain that unless great care is taken, serious risk of injury does exist.
May I say a word on this matter of compensation water? I am quite certain that there are many hon. Members, other than the hon. Member for Motherwell, who are well aware that the reactions of salmon to changes of condition are more or less unpredictable, and it is impossible to say what will happen when you alter the natural flow of a river. I would like, however, to tell the House my own experience. The river on which I live had its natural flow altered. The catch-

ment area of Loch Doon, by which the River Doon is fed, was diverted to supply the Galloway scheme. Compensation water was given to take its place. Under natural conditions a spate on the Doon used to last for 3 or 4 days. Under artificial conditions, it lasts for three or four hours, and the level of the water never attains the height it used to attain under natural conditions. The result of that and of the spawning grounds in the catchment area being very difficult of access is that fishing in the Doon has been ruined. From my own observations, I would say that where one salmon is caught to-day, ten were caught in pre-Hydro-Electric days. So far as the Doon is concerned, that is not a matter of any public importance, but if you apply that experience to the present scheme, then, I am suggesting to the House, great damage may be done to the public interest by way of loss of employment, and otherwise. I would refer again to the report and to the Tribunal's final word on the matter. They say:
It is not possible to predict, or to assess, with any degree of certainty the extent of damage to fishing interests…All that can be said with reasonable certainty is that some damage is to be apprehended, but its extent and the consequent financial loss cannot be accurately computed.
There is no doubt in the minds of the Tribunal that a loss is going to occur. But the amount, they cannot gauge. Now I turn to another aspect of this matter. I want to find out, if possible, what is the real driving force behind this scheme. Those of us who passed the Hydro-Electric Development Bill believed it was going to benefit, not in small but in large measure, the Highlands; that the Hydro-Electric Board, being a Scottish Board, would work to that end, and that it would have constantly in mind the advantage and the needs of the Highlands, and little else. I want to show from the Tribunal's report how that has worked out in practice. We are told in paragraph 10:
The Tummel-Garry project is intended, primarily, as a revenue producing undertaking to meet in particular peak load demands on the Central Electricity Boards' Central Scotland grid.
Paragraph 17 says that to justify its purpose, the Board maintains a triple contention, first, that it is warranted by the broad intention of the Act of 1943; next, by pointing to the urgent and imme-


diate needs of the Central Electricity Board, and, finally, by reliance on the approval if not the compelling encouragement of the Electricity Commissioners. In paragraph 19, the needs of the Central Scotland grid are again stressed, and they state that it was essential that the power to be developed by the Tummel-Garry scheme should be available for that purpose. Paragraph 26 tells us something which I am afraid we, in this House, overlooked when we passed the Development Bill, that is, that by their power of veto, the Electricity Commissioners can control the whole development policy of the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board. Later we are informed as to the point of view of the Commissioners. Their first consideration—and I do wish Scottish Members to note this—is the need of the Central Electricity Board for more power, and, secondly, the need of the Hydro-Electric Board to develop schemes which will show a margin of profit. Sir John Kennedy, who gave evidence on behalf of the Commissioners, went on to indicate that the types of profit-making schemes which would meantime earn the approval of the Electricity Commissioners were those designed to generate electricity for sale to the Central Electricity Board, and that the Commissioners did not take into account either amenities or fishing interests. He might well have added, for indeed it is only too apparent, that they took no notice of the interests of the Highlands as such. I do beg the House to bear with me while I make two other quotations from that report, because they seem to be of very great importance. I want to quote paragraph 30 of this report to the House. The tribunal say in that paragraph:
We consider, therefore, that the policy which the Board have adopted in promoting this Scheme is one which they are entitled to adopt, and even one which, in the circumstances, having regard to the pressing needs of the Central Electricity Board, as these were set before them, and to the attitude of the Electricity Commissioners, they are constrained to adopt. It appears to us further that in the absence of evidence to contradict the testimony of the Central Electricity Board, or of successful challenge of the discretion of the Electricity Commissioners the conclusion cannot be avoided that the Board had little option but to follow the course so plainly indicated for them.
These last words surely make the position clear: "To follow the course so plainly indicated for them." Indicated by whom? By the Electricity Commis-

sioners? Who can doubt, in the light of these quotations, and particularly, of these final words, that the whole object of this scheme was to supply electricity to the country at large, and that the Highlands are of but secondary importance? If any doubt remains let us consider what the tribunal had to say on the alternative scheme, which certain of the objectors contended would be more truly in the public interest—the Glen Affric and Quoich projects. They said:
There is no doubt that the development of such projects would be in accordance with the Board's statutory duties, and would enable them to satisfy the demands of the class of consumer specifically indicated in Section 2 (1) (c) of the Act of 1943 There is equally no doubt that such a project would be financially and economically more adventurous than one with a ready-made customer and an instantly computable profit at hand. It is also true that such a project might play apart in attracting industry to the Highlands, and thus, if successful, bring new blood to an exhausted and dwindling economy. It would not, however, meet any of the needs of the Central Electricity Board…Such a scheme would also have to obtain the approval of the Electricity Commissioners, and while, of course, it is impossible to dogmatise on the hypothetical, it appears to us very doubtful, in view of Sir John Kennedy's evidence, whether such approval would meantime be forthcoming.
Surely, the position is now quite clear. [Laughter.] Hon. Members may laugh, but this is a serious matter. The water power resources of the Highlands can only be developed as may suit the Electricity Commissioners, who have no specific interest in or duty towards the Highlands, and whose only concern is to see that there is sufficient electric energy available to meet the needs of the country at large, and who, in their own words, are concerned neither with amenity nor with other interests. I say, without any hesitation whatever, that it was certainly never the intention of the Scottish Members, that the water power of the Highlands should be controlled by the Electricity Commissioners, or that the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board should be completely subservient to these Commissioners as we, in fact, know that they are. From the point of view of the Scottish Members, such a situation is utterly intolerable, and it must be remedied. The North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board must be free to act, subject only to the consent of the Secretary of State, in such manner as they think will be most advantageous to the


Highlands, and not subject to direction by any foreign body. This matter has, fortunately, come to light at a fairly early stage. It must be remedied now and immediately, and that, I suggest, can best be achieved by refusing to confirm this scheme. If once we confirm it we have confirmed the powers which the Electricity Commissioners, seemingly legally, are assuming, powers which, I am certain, it was never the intention of this House to confer upon them.
I should like the Under-Secretary to tell us what the Highlands are to gain from this scheme. I have no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State struck a balance, before confirming the scheme, as between profit and loss, and that the Under-Secretary has that position clearly in mind. Will he tell us, therefore, the price at which electricity is to be supplied in the Highlands? We want electricity there, but the price, as he will realise, is a most important consideration. And can he tell us how the cost of wiring the homes of the people in the North of Scotland is to be borne? Is there to be any grant-in-aid from the Treasury or from the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Beard? It is no good providing electricity unless the people are able to use it, and many of them will be unable to afford the cost of wiring without assistance. Is the Under-Secretary going to tell us of the possibility of industry being attracted to the North of Scotland as a result of this scheme? Have any inquiries been received, even in connection with the Gairloch scheme? And what of the electro-chemical and metallurgical industries? Will the cost of electricity be at such a level as will attract industries?
It has been said that our water-power is our last remaining natural asset. We must not part with it without making certain that it is being used to the utmost advantage, and if this scheme is not going to give us industry in the north then we are, indeed, throwing away our last asset. In the Report of the tribunal we are told that the estimated net profit which it is proposed to allocate to the support of uneconomical projects is £28,000. The Under-Secretary has said that the anticipated profit, at the present price of coal, is £85,000. I do not want the House to be confused between the two figures. The £28,000 is the estimated

amount of net profit which it is proposed to allocate and has nothing to do with the total amount of net profit which may arise. What can such a sum do towards the regeneration of the Highlands? What is £28,000 as compared—[Laughter]. I do wish the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) would not try to be funny about this. I am asking what is £28,000 as compared with the losses which may result from this scheme—the incalculable loss in regard to fishing, the unpredictable loss of employment in that connection? Do not let us forget that we have 4,500 men employed in that fishing. Do not let us forget, either, the possible loss of tourist traffic. If there is to be only £28,000 allowed against these things, then, indeed, Scotland has made a very bad bargain. The scheme which we are discussing is to cost £6,500,000. If it is not to give employment of a permanent nature it is money thrown away so far as the Highlands are concerned. Electricity is not the only thing the Highlands want. They want improved communications, improved housing, improved piers and harbour facilities. If all they are going to get out of an expenditure of £6,500,000 is £28,000 a year, the money had far better be put to some other use. I would remind Scottish Members of the threat which the Lord Privy Seal held out to Scotland when he spoke in the Debate on the Address, and informed us that we could not expect to receive continually sums of money from other parts of the country.
Finally, I put this to the House: Would this House ever have approved of such a scheme as this had it been put forward by free enterprise? Would it have considered for one moment jeopardising the employment of 4,500 persons, altering some of the finest scenery of central Scotland, risking a diminution of the tourist traffic, for the beggarly sum of £28,000? I say it would have done nothing of the kind. The House would have laughed the whole thing out of court. The decision should be no different because we happen to be dealing with a public corporation. This constructional scheme can do little for the Highlands. It is essentially a scheme to provide electricity to parts of the country South of the Highland line. We have no evidence whatever that it will result in increased employment or amenity, as that word was used by the former Secretary of State. We have evidence that the profit accruing to the


Highlands is so small as to be entirely negligible. I urge that our proper course tonight is to vote so as to let the Secretary of State and the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board know that the water power of the Highlands must be used in such a way as will ensure greater benefits to the Highlands and Islands, benefits such as will give some hope of a better and brighter economic future, stop the flow of emigration and restore prosperity and happiness again.

10.8 p.m.

Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: I have listened with some surprise, I put it no higher than that, to the passion with which the hon. and gallant Member attacked the problem of the Highlands. Indeed I wish his party had attacked it thirty or forty years ago as passionately as he attacked this Measure and its benefit to the Highlands tonight. He asked about the damages and ravages of free enterprise, and whether they would have been as great as the alleged damages, prospective and theoretical, that the Board may inflict on the Highlands of Scotland. I would like to ask him exactly what free enterprise has done for the Highlands in the last 100 years? Was it a Socialist Government that was guilty of not only standing by, but of actively helping to prosecute the eviction of our people from the Isles and Highlands?
The hon. and gallant Member talks about £28,000 for the small schemes from this project annually. When a Tory Government was in office before the war a sub-committee, a fiddling little committee without any Government backing of any kind, a sub-committee of the Economic Committee of the Scottish Development Council, sat for two or three years. I could not get an answer from the then Secretaries of State for Scotland which did not refer me to the time when that committee would report. When they did the Government took immediate action. They gave us half an hour in which to discuss the Highlands problem. In that report we were given for the Highlands the magnificent sum of £65,000 not annually but, apparently, for all time.

Mr. McKie: The hon. Member has made great play with what has or has not been done for the Highlands and Islands by private enterprise. May I ask him if he is aware—however faulty it may

have been in the way of transport—what Messrs. MacBrayne's steamer services have effected for the Highlands and Islands?

Mr. MacMillan: I have only to refer to the cockroach and rat infested vessels of the MacBrayne Company. If I had more time I would remove some of the mental cockroaches for the benefit of the hon. Member.
I was rather gladdened as well as surprised by the passionate oratory of our new Highland advocate, the hon. and gallant Member for Pollok (Commander Galbraith). The ex-Lord Advocate spoke about taking the Whips off in order to get a free expression of the opinion of this House, but I wonder if he remembers when the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McKinlay), supported by myself, defended the rightful interests, as we believed, of the county council of Dumbarton, against what we at that time regarded as being the rather high-handed action of this very Board? Did he not threaten to put the Whips on, on that occasion?

Mr. J. S. C. Reid: The hon. Gentleman will remember that that matter was settled amicably, by negotiation.

Mr. MacMillan: The matter was settled amicably by negotiation, through no fault of the right hon. and learned Gentleman. The utmost pressure had to be brought upon him, upon the Board and upon certain other people before that "amicable" arrangement was arrived at, but he still threatened that the Whips were going on if we did not withdraw. It was nice to have all this public-spirited display by the hon. Members behind the right hon. and learned Gentleman with whom he, as a Member of their party, so heartily disagreed. Far from our experience of the Tories being that they were, as he put it, the guardians of the future of the Highlands, we have had this experience that they have been the rearguard of reaction and the obstructionist movement against all attempts to rehabilitate the Highlands of Scotland. [Hon. Members: "The rearguard?"] They were fighting a rearguard action. The hon. and gallant Member for Perth and Kinross (Colonel Gomme-Duncan), I hope, may be subject to conversion. He referred to the occasion of the meeting of St. Paul and Agrippa.
He quoted "Almost thou persuadest me—" I suggest that before he goes all the way wrong tonight, he may follow the other experience of St. Paul when he was on the way to Damascus and become reconverted to our point of view.
A good deal has been said about amenities; definitions and counter-definitions, advocacy and counter-advocacy have been bandied about. I am no follower of the Sussex Highlanders. I am no follower of the fellow who comes up to the Highlands of Scotland once a year, or once in two years, to do a spot of hunting and fishing, like an elegant Eskimo. I am no poet of the "lone shieling or the misty island. "I have lived in a misty island and I have lived in a shieling, and I challenge any hon. Member opposite to match that. But having had that experience does not make me any more amenable to being led by somebody talking, not from a misty island, but from a London fog, when it comes to a question of Highland scenery and beauty. The late Secretary of State gave us certain assurances which, I hope, will be honoured throughout the activities of the Board. I should confess to apprehension, if the Board were to be allowed a completely free hand in this matter; but the Board obviously is not going to have a free hand. It will be all the time subject to examination and supervision by Parliament and the people of this country. We are not such driven cattle that we cannot control our own destinies with or without a Board. The Board will have to carry out its activities with all due respect for amenities. Nobody respects more than I do Highland amenities. I am not going to be patronised by any Sassenach coming to tell me that I have no regard for the Highlands. I am sure that the hon. and gallant Member for Argyll (Major McCallum) shares the same solicitude and respect, and that he will vote in the Lobby with the Government tonight.
Amenities we have, and I am sure that the modern engineers and architects who will be consulted and will have a very large say in the construction of these works, will insist, if only for their reputations'sake, that the schemes shall be moulded into their environment. The tourist industry has been brought in as a possible sufferer under the activities of

the Board on this scheme. We could sink a hundred Tummel-Garry schemes into the Highlands without doing any permanent and visible damage to the Highlands. It would, on the other hand, make a tremendous difference if we had a hundred such schemes making electricity for industries situated in the north and west. We know that the salmon is an expensive business, whether the consumer is buying it or whether someone is catching it in the Highlands.
It is not the ordinary Highlander who goes out, except under penalty, to catch the salmon. He goes out at night, but he does so at his own risk. I have tremendous respect for the poacher. Even the Churches in the Highlands regard poaching as a crime and not as a sin. The tourist industry is seasonal and gives only partial employment and a rather small income. We must industrialise the Highlands to a very large extent. The hon. Member for South Edinburgh (Sir W. Darling) said there were two things which we exported from Scotland, wind and water. That might well apply to the hon. Member.

Sir William Darling: The hon. Member has mistaken me. I said that we exported water but we wanted to conserve the wind.

Mr. MacMillan: If the hon. Member had pursued that policy during the Election, South Edinburgh might have been better represented.

Sir W. Darling: On the contrary. That policy was pursued, and the result was that I had a big majority.

Mr. MacMillan: A lot of my hon. Friends have paid too much regard to what is almost a sentimental appeal to us to preserve the amenities of the Highlands. The Highlanders, no more than other people, can live upon scenery and amenity alone. They must work in order to live, and must produce. They must be employed in the most socially useful labour, not only for their own sakes but for the sake of the nation. I maintain that even the salmon fishery people are not being employed in the most socially useful way in which they could be employed in the Highlands.
We have had opposition from what is in a sense politically the most backward


of Scotland's darkest counties, Perthshire, as reactionary in its attitude to domestic progress as it was a few years ago to its pro-Fascist foreign policy. If they wish to attack anything, let them attack the Grampian company. They are the people who hold the ordinary domestic consumers in Perthshire up to ransom with high rates for electricity supplies. I believe there should be a flat rate charge for electricity throughout the whole of Great Britain, including the Western Isles. Our citizens everywhere have the right to get at the same cost the absolutely fundamental necessities of a convenient, comfortable, modern life. I believe that the people who have served us in the 51st Highland Division have at least as much right to comforts and necessities like these as the shareholders of the Grampian Electricity Company. There is one criticism I want to make, and it is a criticism which I have faith this Government will meet. I do not think sufficient effort has yet been made in the past—though I believe it is now being made by the Under-Secretary of State—to get the plant, machinery and other ancillary equipment required produced in Scotland. It is important for us in Scotland not only to have cheap electricity, but wherever possible to develop our industries in this new industrial area to service that electrical supply industry and be serviced by it in turn.
The other day we discussed Palestine as a possible home for the Jews. We have for generations had to look overseas for several homes for the Highlanders—Canada, New Zealand, Australia, and the United States. Those countries have taken the Highlanders only too gladly, without question of numbers, quotas or certificates. They have been only too glad to get them, because the people who have left the Highlands and Islands have been the best and most vigorous stock. Those countries got our people for the simple reason that the tourist industry and the miserable salmon fisheries and the rest of our "comfort" services and seasonal catering could not give them full employment, a sure livelihood, and a decent standard of living.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Will the hon. Member give me a direct message to my constituents whom he describes as a miserable lot of salmon fishermen?

Mr. MacMillan: The hon. and gallant Member may convey this message to his constituents. I think it is high time they got rid of the reactionary landlords who have claimed it as a natural right to control the salmon fisheries and the land and exclude native born Highlanders from the right to enjoy and exploit their own resources. I should be glad to amplify that at a later time, and to put it in writing if the hon. and gallant Member would like to use it at the next election. There is one appeal I want to make, and I hope it will be reinforced by all hon. Members, whether they are for or against this scheme. It is that hydro-electrical development should be fitted into a general plan for the rehabilitation and restoration of the economic life of the Highlands.
It is important that this new Socialist Government should not rest in the romantic valley of vision, but should make some effort, however arduous, to climb to, at least, the foothills of practical achievement. We shall have time to do it, and all our support is in the faith that they will do it, and I will tonight, with certain already well-known reservations, give them my support for this scheme, believing that this electricity—I was about to say, hopefully, this cheap and plentiful electricity—is absolutely essential to all the new industry we expect to see in the North. It will be a blessing when we can supply the domestic users with electricity, so that I shall see, before I leave this House, the time when it is not necessary for women in the Western Isles to go out cutting peat and carting it home—a burdensome and primitive toil—in order to get fuel for their homes.
I hope to see the day when the people of the Western Isles will no longer have to use paraffin lamps, with all their dirtiness and expense and danger of fire, especially to children. I want to see pass the days when they live in the primitive conditions in which hon. Members opposite have allowed and compelled so many of our people to live for generations past. I do not want to see the Highlands despoiled—I do not think I shall see them despoiled—but I do not want to see Highlanders exported like the "wind and water" of the hon. Member for South Edinburgh. There is one other export industry in which we have always excelled—the export of our finest citizens


between the wars that the Tory Party by their foreign policy have brought upon the people they ignored in their domestic policy. I agree with the Irish poet who said:
No Irish sign we would efface
But yet our lips would gladlier hail
The first-born of the coming race
Than the last splendour of the Gael.
So might a Highland poet also have said, revering the best of the past; but, looking to the more hopeful future. More hopeful, because, it is not the last splendour of the Gael. It is their first opportunity to show their real latent splendour. If the Government rise to the occasion, I hope to see our people living again, and content to live, in their own land, bringing up their children, with opportunity for work, and for leisure, and, at least, some reasonable pleasure; with a little time, perhaps, to look to those things of the spirit which are as important as the endless striving for the daily bread which alone is not the full life. I look forward to the day when our Highlanders will be able to lift their eyes to their own Highland hills and our Islesmen look across the old Deucaledonian Sea with a dignity born of earned independence; no longer ill-governed and forced in idleness to depend on miscalled "doles" and the public assistance which reactionary Governments and county councils may care to give them at the humiliating assessment of human worth of 5s. per child per week.

10.27 p.m.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: I observed that the hon. Member for the Western Isles (Mr. MacMillan) indicated that he proposed to support the scheme with certain definite reservations. It is a pity the House did not receive an inkling of the nature of those reservations, because I feel that if the hon. Member had been frank, he would have shown the House that the fundamental weakness of this scheme is that it is not going to give him the amenities which he described. The hon. Member nods his head.

Mr. MacMillan: I do not agree.

Mr. Stewart: Then why did the hon. Member nod his head? Apparently, he had second thoughts. At first he thought he agreed with me, but then he remembered that the Whips are on. The hon.

Member and I have this in common. On 30th March of this year, he and his hon. Friend the Member for Dumbartonshire (Mr. McKinlay), and two hon. Members on this side, put down another Prayer to annul the first scheme introduced by this Board. Therefore, let the House understand—and particularly new Members—that it is not anew thing, nor apparently a reactionary thing, to pray that a scheme from this Board should be annulled. The first initiative in that direction was taken by the Labour Party, and for a very good reason. The only difference was that the hon. Member for Dumbartonshire made an arrangement, very adequately, behind the Chair with the Secretary of State, and it did not come to a debate, but he intended it to come to a debate and he invited us to help him, and I should have helped if it had come to a debate, because the case he had to make against the Board was a very good one.

Mr. McKinlay (Dumbartonshire): But the Board capitulated. They do not propose to do that now.

Mr. Stewart: If they would capitulate now, there would be no need for a Division. All those who have supported Prayers against this Board are right and they will always be right. May I endeavour now to sum up the main points at issue, apart altogether from discussions on amenities and fishing rights? For my part I confess that these two questions have not impressed me as much as the real issue with which we are concerned. Amenities are not the real fundamental objectives in this case.
I want the House to face all the facts, this hydro-electricity scheme is based upon the 1943 Act, and I think hon. Members who are new to the House, should give me their attention for a moment or two. When the 1943 Act was introduced by Mr. Tom Johnston, it was submitted primarily as a scheme to develop the Scottish Highlands. If the House desired it I could quote half a dozen extracts to confirm that statement. He said on 24th February that the Council of State had unanimously agreed to an authoritative inquiry into how the great hydro-electric power of the Highlands could be used for the benefit of the Highlands. In the course of the discussion on that Bill these words "for the benefit of the Highlands" were repeated again and


again. This is not a matter of providing electricity for Great Britain. There are other schemes, other Measures, other occasions on which this House could regard the general problem of electricity supply, but to regard the Highland Electricity Board, specially created by Mr. Tom Johnston, merely as another power station for the Central Electricity Board, is an insult to this House and to the Highlands, and I should regard it as an insult to Mr. Tom Johnston himself if it were so suggested.
This is a scheme for the Highlands, and for this reason I beg the House to consider the scheme as it stands. If there is any doubt about it I beg them to look at the Act. Section 2 states that the duties of the new Board are:
to provide the electricity required to meet the demands of ordinary consumers
—like the constituents of the hon. Member for the Western Isles. That is the first task. The second task was to provide electricity for authorised undertakers and the third to provide supplies for the large users. Mr. Tom Johnston told us about the great electric chemical industries he hoped to bring in, and spoke of the great hopes he had that the Scottish Co-operative Wholesale Society would come in. Where are they? Is there any sign of any great industry having come in or having sought to come in? What was the second provision? I ask the House to ponder over the words in Section 2 (d):
It shall be the duty of the Board to give priority to the demands of the consumers and authorised undertakers mentioned above over all other demands for the electricity generated by them.
If this Board in this present No. 2 construction scheme, were doing that, there would be no Prayer for annulment. It is because they are doing the very opposite, that we are praying and, I hope, praying successfully, against the Order. The hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Cook), who claimed that the numbers of signatures were large, apparently does not know what pressure has been brought to bear on us and the thousands of letters we have had.

Mr. Cook: Is the hon. Member aware that I have received letters every day and from all over the country?

Mr. Stewart: I must leave the hon. Member to settle with his own constituents.
How are these duties being performed? The Board has put forward two schemes so far—Loch Sloy and this one. What was the Loch Sloy scheme? Ninety per cent. of the total electricity to be generated under that scheme goes to the Central Electricity Board. There is nothing there for the hon. Member for the Western Isles nor for the hon. and gallant Member for Argyll (Major McCallum). There is nothing there for the private consumer. The crofter, the small industry or large industry has nothing to meet the first three duties imposed on the Board by this Act. Where is the electricity produced by this No. 2 scheme going? Ninety per cent. again is going to the Central Electricity Board. There is a little tit-bit thrown in,340 houses in Gairloch to be supplied by the Board. Some £6,000,000 is to be spent on an electricity scheme and the sop to us is of 340 houses in Gairloch. It is an insult to the Highlands and a fraud on the people who believe in this scheme.
The Board themselves do not claim that there is going to be any great advantage to the people. According to the Cameron report, this particular scheme, this Tummel-Garry scheme, is going to lift a profit of £28,000 and that £28,000 is to provide the subsidy to supply electricity to 1,500 people in the West. There is something "phoney" about this. That is what the Cameron report says but Lord Airlie has a different figure. He says that the profits of the scheme will meet one-third of the cost of all uneconomic schemes. We are told that the uneconomic schemes are going to cost £127,000, so Lord Airlie's figure is £90,000, not £28,000. We are a little disturbed and, I am bound to say, a little suspicious, about these contradictions.
Why do they give this supply to the Central Electricity Board? Two reasons are given. The first is that the Central Electricity Board is in urgent need of electricity. The same reason was given in the Loch Sloy scheme; the same reason is given now, and I predict with confidence that in every scheme in the next ten years the same reason will be given—"Sorry, Highlands, you will have to wait a little longer." The second reason is that they have first got to pay their way. I am sorry the right hon. and learned Member for Hillhead (Mr. Reid) said—although I notice he withdrew it


afterwards—that before the Board could start on its big work it had to pay its way with a profit. But he had no right to say that. On the contrary, Mr. Tom Johnston repeated, time after time, that the first task of the Board was to meet these uneconomic cases, these difficult cases, these houses, crofts, and areas—the main big areas that needed it; and afterwards, or at the most, simultaneously the Board should provide for the larger profit-making sales. There is not a word in the Act to the effect that the Board should first pay its way in this manner. Why is this Board so timorous? It has a Treasury guarantee of £30,000,000. It has the support of this House and of the whole country in going ahead with its plans. It has a ten-years' accounting period. It could afford to make a loss for five, six, seven, eight years without a criticism from anyone. Why does it not face the task of bringing light, power and heat into thousands and thousands of Highland homes that so badly need them? Their timidity in that direction is only equalled by their docile submission to the Electricity Commissioners in other directions.
When I read the report of the Cameron committee, and see precisely what the influence of the Electricity Commissioners is I am not shocked or surprised. I just say to myself with justification, "I warned the House about this in 1943; I warned the House on Clause after Clause in the Committee stage; I opposed the Second Reading of the Bill, on the very ground that this Board was dominated by the Central Electricity Board and the Electricity Commissioners. "I said—my words are on record—that the power lay not in the Highlands but in London. Is it not so? The Cameron report tells us about it—no appeal lies against the decision of the Electricity Commissioners by the Board; the veto of the Commissioners can control the whole development policy of the Hydro-Electric Board. According to the evidence of this impartial committee the Board is completely under the domination of the Commissioners in London. I cannot help saying I am ashamed of Lord Airlie—who bears a great name—that he does not resign his office now, in view of the pressure put upon the Board. Had he taken his courage in his hands as he has done in the past and said openly— [Interrup-

tion.] I am glad he is here. Had he stated publicly that his duties could not be performed because of the excessive pressure of the Electricity Commissioners the whole House would have supported him. I invite him to take that step now—and his colleagues.
I remember that in the earlier Debate the present Joint Under-Secretary was one of those who appealed to the Secretary of State on behalf of the unimportant ordinary consumers. It was the hon. Gentleman himself who, in a rather interesting passage gave the history of his own experience. He sat upon the Commission dealing with one of the private enterprise schemes—and he, like myself, has supported all the schemes that have come before the House in days gone by on the grounds that Scotland needed them. It will be very interesting for the House to recollect what the hon. Gentleman, who is going to reply to this Debate, said when the Hydro-Electric Development (Scotland) Bill is under discussion. He said:
When I was on a committee discussing this Measure in Edinburgh one of the constant criticisms was that there was no provision for making electricity available to the humbler members of the community, and those separated by a long distance from the source of power. I must say that the original Bill"—
that is the private enterprise Bill
which the House did not pass, carried better guarantees than this Bill, for the supply of electricity to those whom it would be difficult to supply.
There was an Amendment to strike out the words "so far as practicable" from the Bill, so as to make it obligatory on the Board to provide those private consumers and small industries. On that occasion the hon. Gentleman the present Undersecretary said:
I ask the Committee to look at this Amendment as a practical business proposition. What will happen here? The Board will not do anything but run electricity to pay. It is the natural thing to want to show the best possible balance sheet, and we should try to keep them from doing it."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th May, 1943, V. 389, c. 222.]
I hope the hon. Gentleman still says so. I am trying to prevent their running this purely as a matter of a business balance-sheet. I am appealing on behalf of those ordinary folk in the Highlands who expect this Bill to give them light and heat and warmth, but who have been defrauded. This is a test


case. If we pass this particular scheme, and in so doing give our approval to this domination by the Electricity Commissioners of the activities of the Board, I am certain that it will be regarded as a precedent, and will be followed, in scheme after scheme. The Board will go on seeking for profitable schemes, will go on submitting to the demands of the Central Board for more power; and the cause of the Highland folk will go on being neglected. I have supported every scheme in the past, but this scheme is not going to meet their needs, and I oppose it for that reason.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Buchanan): The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Buchanan) rose—

Mr. McAllister: On a point of Order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker; is it the intention that the speech by the hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Scotland, shall conclude this Debate?

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): That is not a point of Order.

10.49 p.m.

Mr. Buchanan: I thought this was not an inconvenient time for me to intervene on this question. This is not unlike our Private Billprocedure, under which the time allowed for Debate is, roughly speaking, three hours. On this matter we have gone now at least half-an-hour longer, and I thought, in view of general Parliamentary procedure, as I was probably the last Government speaker, it would not be unfair to keep to the standard time appointed in pre-1939 days, for Debates of this kind.
May I say this to the hon. Member for East Fife (Mr. Stewart) that what he has been attacking has not been the scheme. What he has been attacking has been the legislation that empowered the scheme to be made, and it is not to that that I would address myself tonight. Tonight we are not discussing the Board and its make-up. Tonight we are discussing a certain scheme that has been put on the Table for the approval or disapproval of this House.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: On a point of Order. With great respect, the hon. Member must know that the criticisms that I was making were based on the report of the Cameron Committee which dealt with this scheme.

Mr. Buchanan: The point that the hon. Member was attacking all along was that this Board was the servant of the Electricity Commissioners. As a matter of fact, he and I sat at the time on the Glen Affric scheme. I do not make the slightest complaint of what he has said. I am an old Parliamentarian and when a man says that I am dishonest, I do not take exception to that. I have trained myself long ago to take all these things as they come without grumbling about it. But the hon. Member for East Fife came pretty near to that tonight. I am not grumbling; all I say is that if this had been a private enterprise scheme tonight, he would have backed it. I do not intend to say one word more about that. What I would like to say is that the House is made up, to some extent, of hon. Members who are comparatively new and who do not know the history of this Measure. It so happens that I was involved to this extent with the hon. and gallant Member for Orkney and Shetland (Sir B. Neven-Spence) to whom I paid the compliment of saying that he was a first-class chairman of that committee. He and I sat on what was called the Glen Affric scheme and on that I took a stand not against the scheme but against a private company having the right to hold any part of the Highlands for their own particular development. I took the view that the Highlands should not be treated in isolated parts and developed by a private company but should be taken as a whole.
I came to this House tonight looking for my past to be laid bare. I expected the hon. Member to find some small passage to quote against me. I congratulate him, because it was like the first time I went to the polls. I wondered about my character and whether it would be said that I was really as bad as I seemed to be. The House of Commons discussed the Glen Affric scheme on a Friday afternoon and took the view that the whole thing should be dropped for the time being. The then Secretary of State for Scotland appointed a Committee presided over by one who the then Lord Advocate would agree is as distinguished a member of his profession as there has been in Scotland for some time—Lord Cooper. He was appointed chairman of the Committee with colleagues none of whom I think—there is one exception—belonged to the party to which I belong. After examining the


question, they recommended legislation and the setting up of this particular Board. That was the Cooper Committee and following on that Committee Mr. Tom Johnston intimated, that he proposed to give effect to the Cooper committee report at once. What was the result? Colonel Walter Elliot got up and said with effect: Press on with this legislation at once, and the whole of Scotland will be behind you. What are we told now—that the whole of Scotland, or at least some signatories, are against us. The facts are that the report was pressed on, and there followed a Bill, to which hon. Gentlemen gave a Second Reading. There was no Division. The hon. Gentleman did not vote against it, and the scheme went through unopposed.

Mr. H. Stewart: I put down an Amendment to reject the Bill and spoke on it, and if I could have got some support for it I would have voted against the Bill.

Mr. Buchanan: The fact remains that there was no Division and that the hon. Member did not vote against it.

Mr. Keeling: May I remind the Under-Secretary that one of the reasons why that Bill was unopposed was the solemn assurance given by the Secretary of State that the recommendations of the Amenity Committee would be attended to.

Mr. Buchanan: I will take that in its turn and deal with King Charles' head. This is the history of the scheme. The Bill was brought in and it has now become an operative Act. Whatever the hon. Member for East Fife may say, hon. Gentlemen opposite backed the Bill as much as I did. Following on that the Board was set up and so far as my recollection goes every member of the Board, with one exception, was non-political. I would add that when someone says to me that he has no politics that usually means he is voting against me. Anyway the Board was selected, and so far as I know none of them belonged to my party. After a careful survey the Loch Sloy scheme was proposed, and now there is what is known as the No. 2 Scheme. Here may I interpose that it is sometimes said that this Board has no regard for the welfare of the Highlands, and that all they are concerned

with is the export of electricity to the South. That is not quite true and it is not painting anything like a correct picture. Apart from these schemes the Board has gone to South Uist and established a Diesel station for the development of the seaweed industry in that part of the country. They have been making a survey in the Highlands and if the hon. and gallant Member for Pollok (Commander Galbraith) had read the answer given to the hon. and gallant Member for Orkney and Shetland, and the hon. Member for the Western Isles (Mr. MacMillan), he would have had a complete answer to the question of what the Board was doing and intended to do for the development of electricity in the Highlands. Hon. Members have also spoken about amenities and fishing and the like, and about the setting up of the Amenity Committee and the Fisheries Committee. The Amenity Committee decided by three votes to two—

Mr. Snadden: No.

Mr. Buchanan: It was decided by three votes to two. The hon. Member for West Perth (Mr. Snadden) may have other views, but that is the position. The Amenity Committee were three for, and two against.

Mr. Snadden: I think I said "by a majority."

Mr. Buchanan: Quite frankly, he has always said a majority. Yes, but the public always get to know the size of the majority so that they can put a decent judgment on it. It is quite true that much depends on the angle from which one looks at it. Amenity will be interfered with to some extent; no one denies it. It is true we interfere with a sports ground and it is claimed that the sports ground was a very essential thing for Highland games there, but the Board is giving an equally good sports ground, a sports ground in some ways as well equipped for this purpose as the original sports ground was. It is true we are interfering with a bridge called the Clunie Bridge. Difference of opinion may arise whether it is an amenity or not. I reject the idea that modern men cannot build a better bridge than was built 100 years ago. Those who claim to be expert say that the siting of the new bridge, far from taking away from the scenery will add power and glory to it.

Mr. Snadden: I only mentioned the bridge in passing.

Mr. Buchanan: Allow me to mention it in passing too. I remember the Galloway Scheme in this House when, I was a young man and everything said about the Galloway Scheme was much the same as has been said about this scheme tonight—scenery, fish and everything else. May I say to the hon. and gallant Member for Pollok—a member of a distinguished profession usually known for accuracy in figures—that he really should check his figures about fishing. He said 2,000 men were involved. Two thousand men are involved, but that is in the whole of Scotland, not in this scheme.

Commander Galbraith: Would the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to look up the speech made by the former Secretary of State for Scotland. I quoted the figures he actually gave in his speech and took them as having been given from the Scottish Office as being accurate.

Mr. Buchanan: I have checked up closely and as a matter of fact the hon. Member for West Perth in his speech mentioned several hundreds. The figure I have got from the Fishery Board comes nearer 300; the figure of 2,000 is for the whole of Scotland. It becomes a question of whether fishing is to be interfered with and some people take the view that in a year or two the fishing will be better and spawning grounds will be improved. But if that were not so, this is not the overriding consideration in the scheme.
If you are going to leave it to amenity committees it is good-bye to getting any electricity in Scotland, because amenity committees as such will decide against every scheme. One of the arguments put tonight is that we ought to have examined other schemes. Take the Glen Affric scheme. If we were deciding that on amenity tonight it would go west. An amenity committee almost always gives evidence against a scheme. Local authorities always prefer a scheme outside their area. The Committees are advisory bodies giving advice to a Board and to the Government. I would agree with the right hon. and learned Member for Hillhead (Mr. Reid) that they are not substitutes for the Government.
Now about the £28,000. The facts are as follows. I was asked the Question, and I gave the answer and now repeat it,

though I was wrong by £1,000 and had better correct myself, that £86,000 was the actual estimated profit from the scheme, providing the price of coal remained at 35s. a ton. Now it is 42s. £86,000 is the figure they have set aside. Of that £28,000 is to be used for a partial development of the Highlands. The balance will be used for the establishment of a grid throughout the Highlands, and so the whole £86,000 will be used in full for the Highland development of electric power. The Board under Statute must use every penny piece of the balance. After they have paid the normal charges, they must put every penny back for the purpose of electricity elsewhere. The hon. Member for East Fife says this Board does not need to pay its way. Others ask about Government subsidy.
The facts are that the House of Commons for good or ill—the right hon. and learned Member for Hillhead was quite right—rejected every form of State subsidy for this Board. It is no use men coming here and pleading for a form of State subsidy. If I asked for one they would tell me to do something else. The only reason for this is, instead of frontally opposing the Bill to make an excuse for getting out of it. The Board must balance its budget and, indeed, no State subvention is allowed. It is true they can undertake schemes, as they will, that will show a loss. The cost must be met out of the profits of some other scheme, but not at once I agree with the hon. Member for the Western Isles (Mr. Macmillan). I hope this Board is going to take on a large number of schemes that will never pay. The only way they can do that is by taking within their compass a scheme that will give them a considerable profit. Why did they select this scheme? The scheme has the merit, and I admit it quite frankly, of being the best profit-making scheme of all. I must say that I cannot feel this terrible anger about exporting electricity. What have the hon. Gentlemen opposite been calling for? Export trade. But when I suggest that some electricity may be exported from Scotland to England the hon. Gentlemen get heated up. If I suggest exporting to Sweden some other goods, like engineering goods, that is fine; but I must not touch electricity. Really, that is a ridiculous state of things.
What is the position? The facts are that the Board was criticised on the


export of electricity to England. Well, I must confess that I cannot follow the argument. As a matter of fact, the Board will not require to export one unit to England. Indeed, the demand for electricity in Scotland alone, and particularly in Central Scotland, is now pressing on the Board so much that by the time this scheme is estimated to get into working order, the full production, indeed every unit to spare, will be taken up in Scotland itself.
What are the other demands on the Board? One is to supply the Grampian Electricity Company, the private enterprise company—which will please the hon. Gentleman opposite. Who gets the benefit of that? The Grampian Electricity Company is the supplying company for Pitlochry and district. The sale of electricity to that company means that the residents in that district thereby benefit. The third customer is the town council of Aberdeen. First there is the Central Electricity Board; secondly, the Grampian Electricity Company which supplies the people living in Pitlochry, and lastly the town council of Aberdeen—the whole of the power sold within Scotland and distributed there.
In my Parliamentary career I have had many doubts about votes which I have given. I do not know whether I am like other people or not, but many times I have given a vote and wondered whether I had done right. But I have examined this thing freely and closely, and I say this: Scotland has a future. Scotland cannot depend on an industry like salmon fishing, although I appreciate the employment of even 300 men. But if we are to get progress in the Highlands it must not be by the employment of 300 people in salmon fishing. That is a doubtful quantity which must not stop the development of the Highlands. We cannot allow even the extremely doubtful interference with the amenities to stop the development of this country. I say, with some knowledge of amenities, that I am perfectly convinced that this scheme, when it is properly developed, will be far from wasting the amenities. When this scheme is fitted in with its engineering projects, its marshalling of water-power, this unique achievement, far from being a thing which will trouble people, will be an asset to the Scot, with his engineering knowledge.
I say frankly that from the amenity angle I think this scheme fulfils its purpose. If you are going to develop Scotland this scheme must be got on with, because on it depends every other scheme in the North of Scotland. If this scheme is to be self-supporting and if it is to be a financial success, that can only be so if it can render a fairly reasonable profit. It is very much like the Post Office. After all the Post Office delivers letters in the humblest part of Scotland for 2½d., just as it does in the City of London. It can only do that because it makes a handsome profit out of Londoners, and this Board by the handsome profit it will make by distributing electricity to the Lowlands, will be acting in the same way. We believe now that there will be developed in the Midlands great extensions of the iron works. Electric power will be needed; coal is not going to give that power. Do what you like, power must be got from some other source, and I say for the wellbeing of Scotland that electricity should be developed. I do not want to see the wholesale destruction of all the nice things of the country. I want to see them preserved. I have seen the Board and impressed upon them that, so far as I have the power, I will not allow them needlessly to interfere with the amenities. I will watch and control them. I want to say frankly that the Secretary of State for Scotland agrees to exercise his powers with this Board in every possible way. So far as I am concerned, using power and persuasion in every possible way, I will not allow them to despoil my native country needlessly. But I do not take the view that the development and organisation of power will lead to this spoliation. It has not meant this in other countries.
The hon. and gallant Member for Pollok spoke about machinery. I would tell him that I have been in touch with the Board, and I find it is impossible to get certain classes of machinery in Scotland. Nobody makes it. But the first turbines for this scheme are to be made within the shipbuilding firm of Messrs. John Brown. I welcome that for this reason; I do not want the Clyde and my native city to be limited to shipbuilding. I welcome Brown's going into turbines and alternative work. The Board are ordering two turbines—I know this is not a great contract—from Messrs. John


Brawn's. It is not a big thing but it marks the beginning at least of something which will be to the benefit of our Scottish community.
It would be discourteous, if I concluded, without congratulating—I should have done it earlier—the hon. Members who have made maiden speeches during this Debate. I welcome them because I am a Scot and I think that the standard of Scottish Debates is very high. Taking the scheme as a whole I say it is a step forward in a programme which will ultimately bring happiness and I think some form of security to the Highlands. It is a short step but it is a step towards that desirable end, and I trust that the Government will have the approval of the House in this matter. The right hon. and learned member for Hillhead raised the question of a free vote. May I say to him as an old, astute Parliamentarian, that he ought not to try this on me in this way. I think my Scottish opponents are getting into the frame of mind of thinking me too simple. The facts are that the Secretary of State for Scotland signed the Order. If it were voted against, it must inevitably, mean

that resignation of the Secretary of State. [Interruption.] Oh yes, every Parliamentarian knows that would be the result on what we are now discussing. I see the hon. and gallant Member for Partick (Sir A. Young) opposite me. He is an old campaigner and an old Whip who knows that if the facts had been the same on his side, only one thing could have been done, he would have had the Whips on. I am saying no more and no less than this. The Government stand or fall by this measure. We think it is a decent measure and a measure on which in years to come, this House of Commons far from being ashamed may be proud of the action it has taken.

Colonel Thornton-Kemsley (Aberdeen and Kincardine, Western): Colonel Thornton-Kemsley (Aberdeen and Kincardine, Western) rose—

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Whiteley): The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Whiteley) rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The House divided: Ayes, 248; Noes, 63.

Division No. 18.]
AYES.
[11.25 p.m.


Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)
Clitherow, R.
Gibson, C. W.


Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)
Coldrick, W.
Gooch, E. G.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Collick, P.
Gordon-Walker, P. G.


Anderson, A. (Motherwell)
Colman, Miss G. M.
Grey, C. F.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Comyns, Dr. L.
Grierson, E.


Attewell, H. C.
Cook, T. F.
Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)


Austin, H. L.
Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camberwell, N.W.)
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)


Awbery, S. S.
Corlett, Dr. J.
Griffiths, Capt. W. D. (Moss Side)


Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.
Crawley, Flt.-Lieut. A.
Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.


Bacon, Miss A.
Crossman, R. H. S.
Hardman, D. R.


Baird, Capt. J.
Daggar, G.
Hastings, Dr. Somerville


Balfour, A.
Daines, P.
Haworth, J.


Barstow, P. G.
Davies Edward (Burslem)
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)


Barton, C.
Davies, Ernest (Enfield)
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)


Battley, J. R.
Davies, Harold (Leek)
Herbison, Miss M.


Beattie, J. (Belfast, W.)
Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S.W.)
Hewitson, Captain M.


Bechervaise, A. E.
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Hobson, C. R.


Belcher, J. W.
Deer, G.
Hogg, Hon. Q.


Berry, H.
de Freitas, Geoffrey
Holman, P.


Bing, Capt. G. H. C.
Delargy, Captain H. J.
Horabin, T. L.


Blenkinsop, Capt. A.
Diamond, J.
House, G.


Blyton, W. R.
Donovan, T.
Hoy, J.


Boardman, H.
Douglas, F. C. R.
Hubbard, T.


Bottomley, A. G.
Driberg, T. E. N.
Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)


Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W
Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)


Bowen, R.
Dye, S.
Hughes, Lt. H. D. (W'lhampton, W.)


Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)


Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'p'l, Exch'ge)
Edwards, John (Blackburn).
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)


Brook, D. (Halifax)
Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.


Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)
Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
Janner, B.


Brown, George (Belper)
Ewart, R.
Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S.E.)


Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Farthing, W. J.
Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)


Buchanan, G.
Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)
Jones, J. H. (Bolton)


Burden, T. W.
Foot, M. M.
Jones, Maj. P. Asterley (Hitchin)


Burke, W. A.
Foster, W. (Wigan)
Keenan, W.


Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)
Fraser, T. (Hamilton)
Kenyon, G.


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Freeman, Maj. J. (Watford)
King, E. M.


Chamberlain, R. A.
Gaitskell, H. T. N.
Kinley, J.


Champion, A. J.
Gallacher, W.
Kirby, B. V.


Chetwynd, Capt. G. R.
Gibbins, J.
Lang, G.




Lavers, S.
Paget, R. T.
Stross, Dr. B.


Lawson, Rt. Hon. J. J.
Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth)
Sunderland, J. W.


Lee, F. (Hulme)
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Swingler, Capt. S.


Leonard, W.
Palmer, A. M. F.
Symonds, Maj. A. L.


Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Pargiter, G. A.
Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)


Lindgren, G. S.
Parkin, Flt.-Lieut. B. T.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Lipson, D. L.
Pearson, A.
Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)


Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Peart, Capt. T. F.
Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)


Little, Dr. J.
Perrins, W.
Thomas, John R. (Dover)


Logan, D. G.
Porter, E. (Warrington)
Thomson, Rt. Hon. G. R. (E'b'gh, E.)


Longden, F.
Porter, G. (Leeds)
Thorneycroft, H.


Lyne, A. W.
Prescott, Capt. W. R. S.
Timmons, J.


McAllister, G.
Pritt, D. N.
Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.


McEntee, V. La T.
Proctor, W. T.
Usborne, H. C.


McGhee, H. G.
Pryde, D. J.
Vernon, Maj. W. F.


Mack, J. D.
Randall, H. E.
Walkden, E.


McKay, J. (Wallsend)
Reeves, J.
Walker, G. H.


McKinlay, A. S.
Reid, T. (Swindon)
Watkins, T. E.


Maclean, N. (Govan)
Rhodes, H.
Watson, W. M.


McLeavy, F.
Ridealgh, Mrs. M.
Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)


MacMillan, M. K.
Roberts, G. O. (Caernarvonshire)
Wells, Maj. W. T. (Walsall)


Macpherson, T. (Romford)
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)
White, C. F. (Derbyshire, W.)


Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Mann, Mrs. J.
Rogers, G. H. R.
Wigg, G. E. C.


Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)
Royle, C.
Wilkes, Maj. L.


Marshall, F. (Brightside)
Scollan, T.
Wilkins, W. A.


Medland, H. M.
Segal, Sq. Ldr. S.
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)


Messer, F.
Sharp, Lt.-Col. G. M.
Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)


Middleton, Mrs. L.
Shawcross, Cmdr. C. N. (Widnes)
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Mikardo, Ian
Shurmer, P.
Williams, Rt. Hon. E. J. (Ogmore)


Mitchison, Maj. G. R
Silverman, J. (Erdington)
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)


Monslow, W.
Simmons, C. J.
Williams, W. R. (Heston)


Montague, F.
Skinnard, F. W.
Williamson, T.


Moody, A. S.
Smith, Capt. C. (Colchester)
Willis, E.


Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke)
Wills, Mrs. E. A.


Morley, R.
Smith, S. H. (Hull, S.W.)
Wilson, J. H.


Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)
Smith, T. (Normanton)
Wise, Major F. J.


Mort, D. L.
Snow, Capt. J. W.
Woodburn, A.


Moyle, A.
Sorensen, R. W.
Wyatt, Maj. W.


Murray, J. D.
Stamford, W.
Yates, V. F.


Nally, W.
Steele, T.



Neal, H. (Claycross)
Stephen, C.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:—


O'Brien, T.
Stewart, Capt. M. (Fulham)
Mr. Mathers and


Oliver, G. H.
Stokes, R. R.
Mr. Collindridge.




NOES.


Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.
Haughton, Maj. S. G.
Ropner, Col. L.


Beattie, F. (Cathcart)
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Ross, Sir R.


Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)
Hollis, Sqn.-Ldr. M. C.
Scott, Lord W.


Boothby, R.
Hope, Lt.-Col. Lord J.
Spearman, A. C. M.


Bossom, A. C.
Hurd, A.
Spence, Mai, H. R.


Bower, N.
Hutchison, Lt.-Cdr. Clark (Edin'gh, W.)
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


Boyd-Carpenter, Maj. J. A.
Jennings, R.
Stoddart-Scott, Lt.-Col. M.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W.
Joynson-Hicks, Lt.-Cdr. Hon. L. W.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. J.


Challen, Flt.-Lieut. C.
Keeling, E. H.
Studholme, H. G.


Clarke, Col. R. S.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Thorneycroft, G. E. P.


Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)
Lindsay, Lt.-Col. M. (Solihull)
Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Linstead, H. N.
Thorpe, Lt.-Col. R. A. F.


Darling, Sir W. Y.
Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Turton, R. H.


Dodds-Parker, Col. A. D.
Lloyd, Brig. J. S. B. (Wirral)
Wakefield, Sir W. W.


Dower, Lt.-Col. A. V. G. (Penrith)
McCallum, Maj. D.
Ward, Hon. G. R.


Dower, E. L. G. (Caithness)
McGovern, J.
Wheatley, Lt.-Col. M. J.


Drewe, C.
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Erroll, Col. F. J.
Marples, Capt. A. E.
York, C.


Fraser, Maj. H. C. P. (Stone)
Mellor, Sir J.
Young, Maj. Sir A. S. L. (Partick)


Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D.
Mott-Radclyffe, Maj. C. E.



Grimston, R. V.
Neven-Spence, Major Sir B.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:—


Harvey, Air-Comdre. A. V.
Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C. (Hillhead)
Mr. Snadden and Colonel Gomme Duncan.

Question put accordingly,

"That the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board—Constructional Scheme No. 2 Confirmation Order, 1945, dated 22nd August, 1945, made under the Hydro-Electric Devel-

opment (Scotland) Act, 1943, a copy of which Order was presented on 23rd August, be annulled."

The House divided: Ayes, 45; Noes, 263.

Division No. 19.]
AYES.
[11.35 p.m.


Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.
Harvey, Air-Comdre. A. V.
Scott, Lord W.


Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)
Haughton, Maj. S. G.
Spearman, A. C. M.


Bossom, A. C.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Spence, Maj. H. R.


Bower, N.
Hollis, Sqn.-Ldr. M. C.
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


Boyd-Carpenter, Maj. J. A.
Hope, Lt.-Col. Lord J.
Stoddart-Scott, Lt.-Col. M.


Bromley-Davenport, LI.-Col. W.
Hurd, A.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. J.


Challen, Flt.-Lieut. C.
Hutchison, Lt.-Cdr. Clark (Edin'gh, W.)
Studholme, H. G.


Clarke, Col. R. S.
Jennings, R.
Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.


Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)
Joynson-Hicks, Lt.-Cdr. Hon. L. W.
Turton, R. H.


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Keeling, E. H.
Wakefield, Sir W. W.


Darling, Sir W. Y.
Lindsay, Lt.-Col. M. (Solihull)
Ward, Hon. G. R.


Dodds-Parker, Col. A. D.
Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Wheatley, Lt.-Col. M. J.


Dower, Lt.-Col. A. V. G. (Penrith)
Lloyd, Brig. J. S. B. (Wirral)
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Drewe, G.
Mellor, Sir J.



Fraser, Maj. H. C. P. (Stone)
Mott-Radclyffe, Maj. C. E.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:—


Galbraith, Comdr. T. D.
Ross, Sir R.
Mr. Snadden and Colonel Gomme-Duncan.




NOES.


Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)
Diamond, J.
Lavers, S.


Allen, A. C. (Bosforth)
Donovan, T.
Lawson, Rt. Hon. J. J.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Douglas, F. C. R.
Lee, F. (Hulme)


Anderson, A. (Motherwell)
Dower, E. L. G. (Caithness)
Leonard, W.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Driberg, T. E. N.
Lewis, T. (Southampton)


Attewell, H. C.
Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)
Lindgren, G. S.


Austin, H. L.
Duthie, W. S.
Linstead, H. N.


Awbery, S. S.
Dye, S.
Lipson, D. L.


Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.


Bacon, Miss A.
Edwards, John (Blackburn).
Little, Dr. J.


Baird, Capt. J.
Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)
Logan, D. G.


Balfour, A.
Erroll, Col. F. J.
Longden, F.


Barstow, P. G.
Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
Lyne, A. W.


Barton, C.
Ewart, R.
McAllister, G.


Battley, J. R.
Farthing, W. J.
McCallum, Maj. D.


Beattie, F. (Cathcart)
Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)
McEntee, V. La T.


Beattie, J. (Belfast, W.)
Foot, M. M.
McGhee, H. G.


Bechervaise, A. E.
Foster, W. (Wigan)
McGovern, J.


Belcher, J. W.
Fraser, T. (Hamilton)
Mack, J. D.


Berry, H.
Freeman, Maj. J. (Watford)
McKay, J. (Wallsend)


Bing, Capt. G. H. C.
Gaitskell, H. T. N.
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)


Blenkinsop, Capt. A.
Gallacher, W.
McKinlay, A. S.


Blyton, W. R.
Gibbins, J.
Maclean, N. (Govan)


Boardman, H.
Gibson, C. W.
McLeavy, F.


Boothby, R.
Gooch, E. G.
MacMillan, M. K.


Bottomley, A. G.
Gordon-Walker, P. G.
Macpherson, T. (Romford)


Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W.
Grierson, E.
Mallalieu, J. P. W.


Bowen, R.
Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Mann, Mrs. J.


Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)
Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)


Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'p'l, Exch'ge)
Hall, W. G. (Colne Valley)
Marples, Capt. A. E.


Brook, D. (Halifax)
Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.
Marshall, F. (Brightside)


Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)
Hardman, D. R.
Medland, H. M.


Brown, George (Belper)
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Messer, F.


Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Haworth, J.
Middleton, Mrs. L.


Buchanan, G.
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Mikardo, Ian


Burden, T. W.
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Mitchison, Maj. G. R.


Burke, W. A.
Herbison, Miss M.
Monslow, W.


Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)
Hewitson, Captain M.
Montague, F.


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Hobson, C. R.
Moody, A. S.


Chamberlain, R. A.
Hogg, Hon. Q.
Morgan, Dr. H. B.


Champion, A. J.
Holman, P.
Morley, R.


Chetwynd, Capt. G. R.
Horabin, T. L.
Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)


Clitherow, R.
House, G.
Mort, D. L.


Coldrick, W.
Hoy, J.
Moyle, A.


Collick, P.
Hubbard, T.
Murray, J. D.


Colman, Miss G. M.
Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)
Nally, W.


Comyns, Dr. L.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Neal, H. (Claycross)


Cook, T. F.
Hughes, Lt. H. D. (W'lhampton, W.)
Neven-Spence, Major Sir B.


Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N.W.)
Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)
O'Brien, T.


Corlett, Dr. J.
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Oliver, G. H.


Crawley, Flt.-Lieut. A.
Isaacs, Rt Hon. G. A.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.


Crossman, R. H. S.
Janner, B.
Paget, R. T.


Daggar, G.
Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S.E.)
Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth)


Daines, P.
Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)


Davies, Edward (Burslem)
Jones, J. H. (Bolton)
Palmer, A. M. F.


Davies, Ernest (Enfield)
Jones, Maj. P. Asterley (Hitchin)
Pargiter, G. A.


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Keenan, W.
Parkin, Flt.-Lieut. B. T.


Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S.W.)
Kenyan, C.
Pearson, A.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
King, E. M.
Peart, Capt. T. F.


Deer, G.
Kinley, J.
Perrins, W.


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Kirby, B. V.
Porter, E. (Warrington)


Delargy, Captain H. J.
Lang, G.
Porter, G. (Leeds)







Prior-Palmer, Brig. O.
Smith, T. (Normanton)
Watson, W. M.


Pritt, D. N.
Snow, Capt. J. W.
Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)


Proctor, W. T.
Sorensen, R. W.
Wells, Maj. W. T. (Walsall)


Pryde, D. J.
Stamford, W.
White, C. F. (Derbyshire, W.)


Randall, H. E.
Steele, T.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Reeves, J.
Stephen, C.
Wigg, G. E. C.


Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C. (Hillsend)
Stewart, Capt. M. (Fulham)
Wilkes, Maj. L.


Reid, T. (Swindon)
Stokes, R. R.
Wilkins, W. A.


Rhodes, H.
Stross, Dr. B.
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)


Ridealgh, Mrs. M.
Sunderland, J. W.
Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)


Roberts, G. O. (Caernarvonshire)
Swingler, Capt. S.
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)
Symonds, Maj. A. L.
Williams, Rt. Hon. E. J. (Ogmore)


Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)
Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)


Rogers, G. H. R.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Williams, W. R. (Heston)


Ropner, Col. L.
Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)
Williamson, T.


Royle, C.
Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)
Willis, E.


Scollan, T.
Thomas, John R. (Dover)
Wills, Mrs. E. A.


Segal, Sq. Ldr. S.
Thomson, Rt. Hon. G. R. (E'b'gh, E.)
Wilson, J. H.


Sharp, Lt.-Col. G. M.
Thorneycroft, G. E. P.
Wise, Major F. J.


Shawcross, Cmdr. C. N. (Widnes)
Thorneycroft, H.
Woodburn, A.


Shurmer, P.
Timmons, J.
Wyatt, Maj. W.


Silverman, J. (Erdington)
Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.
Yates, V. F.


Simmons, C. J.
Usborne, H. C.
Young, Maj. Sir A. S. L. (Partick)


Skinnard, F. W.
Vernon, Maj. W. F.



Smith, Capt. C. (Colchester)
Walkden, E.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:—


Smith, Ellis (Stoke)
Walker, G. H.
Mr. Mathers and Mr. Collindridge.


Smith, S. H. (Hull, S.W.)
Watkins, T. E.

Adjournment.

Resolved: "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Pearson.]

Adjourned accordingly at a Quarter to Twelve o'Clock.